Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/22/2011 R September 22, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, September 22, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ligaregvni CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman BY: Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Larry Dean Mieszcak Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Excused) �✓ Ronald Doino (Excused) Fiala Hiller ✓ Chris Hudson (Excused) Henning it Coyle •i' Coletta Also Present: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Misc.Comes: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB Date: 3113112- Item .l o�2►G} 4 Pagel Curies to: September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order for this month, September 22, 2011. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless additional time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person wishing to decide -- I'm sorry. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call, please. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino, Mr. Ronald Doino, and Mr. Chris Hudson are all absent today, excused absence. Page 2 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Thank you. Approval of the agenda. Do we have any changes? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under No. 4, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, No. 2, Omar J. Barreda and Veronica Trujillo has been withdrawn. Case CESD20100018786. Under stipulations we have three stipulations. The first will be Case CESD20100020287, Hilda Beovides; No. 2 will be Case CEAU20100022285, Hilda Beovides; No. 3 will be Case CESD20100006498, Gulf Way condominium. Under Letter C, hearings, No. 4, Case CENA20100020043, Eric and Dayle Westover, has been withdrawn. Number 5, Case CESD20110001824, Ana Milena Franco, has been withdrawn. Number 8, Case CESD20100019476, Eric Dorestil and Elvita Pierre, has been withdrawn. Number 12, Case CEVR20100021002, Mayte Puron, has been withdrawn. Number 13, Case CEPM20090014245, Leonor Montelongo, has been withdrawn. Number 14, Case CESD20090007697, Timothy Beebe, has been withdrawn. Number 17, Case CESD20100022120, DAD Development/Pebblebrooke Center, has been withdrawn. Under No. 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines and liens, No. 5, Case CEVR20100020717, Palm Foundation II, Inc., has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CEVR20100020718, Palm Foundation II, Inc., has been withdrawn. And also under old business we would like to add Letter C, which will be motion to rescind orders. These are for Robert and Serita Brown, and also Letter D, motion to amend orders. This is also Page 3 September 22, 2011 for Robert and Serita Brown, and that is all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the changes. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The agenda's been approved. Now on to the approval of the minutes from our August 25, 2011, hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, wait. One discussion, I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: I will be abstaining from this vote. Page 4 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Moving on to public hearings, Letter A, motion, motions for extension of time. The first case is Robyn Cantara. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Could you state your name for the record. MR. ASARO: Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. We have a letter in our packet requesting an extension for 90 days for health reasons. Any discussion amongst the board? Does the county have an issue with the extension? MR. ASARO: No. No issue at all. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Was the $81.15 paid? MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. ASARO: Yes, that was. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would someone like to entertain a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to extend the time 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Page 5 September 22, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the extension's been granted for 90 days. Thank you, Tony. MR. ASARO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That concludes our motions for extension of time. Now moving on to B stipulations. The first one -- and I apologize for messing up the last name -- is going to be Beovides. And we have -- sorry. There are two cases with the same respondent. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name for the record. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin with Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And the respondent's not here. Would you like to read the stipulation into the record. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. Therefore it is agreed that the -- between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing; Page 6 September 22, 2011 Two, abate all violations by obtaining Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, 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; Four, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Five, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Patrick. Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This was signed yesterday; however, there's a 24-hour provision in here. Being today, the order doesn't actually get passed today, let's say, be 24 hours from now. Any issues from that? MS. RAWSON: No. There are no issues. It would be 24 hours from today's date. Actually, the orders won't be signed today, but this is the day that the board's going to make the order, so it will be 24 hours from today. And good for the respondents, because they knew about it yesterday. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Great. MR. BALDWIN: I spoke to the owner yesterday, and we have an appointment tomorrow afternoon. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you. Page 7 September 22, 2011 Any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. This originally was last year, November of last year. Has anything been done? I see they were cited in May. Has anything been done to rectify the situation during this period of time? MR. BALDWIN: No. The case did open in November, but the owner went through some personal problems for a little while, and I couldn't gain access to the property until -- in April of this year. MR. KAUFMAN: And they feel confident that they'll be able to resolve this? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. They've already -- have been in talks with contractors to abate the violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the stipulation's been accepted. Now moving on to the same respondent, next case. It's a separate case. Page 8 September 22, 2011 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just for the record, would you like to read in the stipulation. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection, and certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, 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. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just so there's no confusion, I don't think the case number was ever read. So this is in case -- pertaining to Case CEAU20100022285. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: So this one is 30 days; the other one was 120? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. This is for a fence surrounding the property. MR. KAUFMAN: Fence and a gate. Make a motion that we approve the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. Page 9 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Great. Thank you, Patrick. The last stipulation that we have is Gulf Way Condominium. Is the respondent here today, or a representative? MR. URBANCIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are you counsel? MR. URBANCIC: Yes, I am. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Joe (sic), do you want to state your name for the record and read the stipulation in. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100006498 dealing with the violation of a garage that was converted into living space without first obtaining Collier County permits located at 211 First Street, Naples, Florida, 34134. Folio No. 5585076008 (sic). It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by Page 10 September 22, 2011 obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit, and obtaining all inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using the methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good morning, sir. MR. URBANCIC: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you mind stating your name for the record. MR. URBANCIC: Certainly. Greg Urbancic, law firm, Coleman, Yovanovich, and Koester for the respondents in this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And just as a formality more than anything, agree to and accept all the provisions? MR. URBANCIC: We agree and accept. We're already in for our building permit, so we're in the process. As soon as that gets approved, we're ready to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: On the address, it says -- I think when we read it, it said Naples, Florida, and this says Bonita Shores. Does that make any difference? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The postal address is Bonita Shores, but it is in Collier County, so it's considered Naples. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 11 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Larry, did you have a question? MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah. Is -- the garage areas and living space, is that occupied? MR. URBANCIC: It has been at various times, but the last time I was told by the owner that there's nobody occupying it at this time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the stipulation's been accepted. Great. Thank you very much. MR. URBANCIC: Thank you. MR. MUSSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you run into any issues -- MR. URBANCIC: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you run into any issues or your client runs into any issues, you have the option to come back in front of us before the time expires and ask for an extension. MR. URBANCIC: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. That concludes all of our stipulations. Now we're going to move on to public hearings. First case is Fakahatchee Trace, LLC. Page 12 September 22, 2011 MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, is it possible to take the case with the translator first? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MS. BAKER: Number 7. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, absolutely. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now we're moving to Case No. -- it was originally Case No. 7 in your packet. Is that the one we're on, Case 7? MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Lunar? CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have Lunar. MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'm not sure which one. Anyways. MR. KAUFMAN: That's on No. 7. MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, that's the one. (The interpreter herein, was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 13 September 22, 2011 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 Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition Chapter 1, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Permits 2004080292 for a fence; 2004112551 for a shed; 2006023718 for a garage conversion; and 2006023732 for an enclosed porch that have all expired without completing all inspections and receiving certificates of completion/occupancy. Location/address where violation exists: 4191 18th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio 35766920004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Erineldo Mosquera and Eddie Lunar, 4191 18th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: June 1, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: June 2, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 1, 2011. Date of re-inspection-: July 15, 2011. And results of a re-inspection: The violation remains. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, property-maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110007333 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and the Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105. Violation location is 4191 18th Place Southwest, Naples, 34116; Folio No. is 35766920004. Service of the notice of violation was given on June 2, 2011. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. I have six photographs taken by myself from June 1st of 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Has the respondent seen the Page 14 September 22, 2011 photographs? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the pictures. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: A matter of note. We have two individual names on this case. We have one individual in front of us. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's get some clarification on that real quick. Joe, can you hang on one second. MR. MUCHA: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record and for the court reporter, can you identify the respondent who's standing before us, please. MR. MOSQUERA: Erineldo Mosquera. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And did you check the deed? He's the property owner, so we're okay. He's one of the owners, correct? MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good, Leno? Page 15 September 22, 2011 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Sorry, Joe. Go ahead. MR. MUCHA: Okay. This case initiated back on June 1, 2011. I had received another complaint on the property. And while researching the property for that case, I found that the permits for a fence, the shed, a garage conversion, and an enclosure of a porch had expired without having all of the inspections completed. On June 2nd of this year I met with Mr. Mosquera and I brought an investigator that spoke Spanish with me, and we explained the violations that we found at that time, and that's when I served the notice of violation. And at that time he had kind of indicated to us that he was having some financial issues, that he possibly might be losing the house. And we just said, well, you know, we'll kind of work with you as long as we can, and basically that's kind of where it's at. It's been a few months. Really no change in any of the permits. And I figured we'd bring it here and let you guys -- you know, see what you guys could come up with. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Joe, do you know if the property's in lis pendens or foreclosure? MR. MUCHA: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Did you say there was a permit pulled? MR. MUCHA: There was a permit pulled on actually all the things that I mentioned, for the shed, the fence, garage convers- -- four separate permits that just were never finished. And this here is a picture of the shed. As you can see, it's not even completed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are we missing, simply, the final inspections, or do we have other inspections missing? MR. MUCHA: The shed and the fence have had no inspections done. The garage conversion and the enclosure of the porch have had Page 16 September 22, 2011 some inspections done but not the final inspection. This is the porch that was enclosed. This is just showing the fence. There's a wood fence and a chain-link fence. And -- oh, that's part of the garage, yeah, just showing that the garage has been converted. I never have actually been inside the garage, but it's showing it so you guys can get a point of view. MR. LEFEBVRE: Were impact fees paid for the garage and screen enclosure? MR. MUCHA: Well, I mean, I'm assuming so, if that's part of the process for when you have to apply for the permit, yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I have -- the floor elevation, generally, is the linchpin on converting garages. So I'm guessing -- or maybe you know and maybe you don't know -- if the elevation in the garage has been raised to the same elevation as the floor or the inspection that checks that elevation, is that one of the things that has been checked? MR. MUCHA: To be honest with you, I do not know that answer. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll ask the respondent then. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning. MR. MOSQUERA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is -- it's a formal process, but you can speak informally. You can talk plainly to us and explain your side of the story and what's going on and where you are in the process. MR. MOSQUERA: Okay. Money's a problem. The problem is that everything -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait, I'm sorry. Could you speak into the mike so that the court reporter can hear you better. Thank you. Page 17 September 22, 2011 MR. MOSQUERA: Everything was done under the law. We did the elevation of the floor in the garage just like the house. There was an inspector that went over there and checked everything. He said it was all right. So I went on with the construction. And its -- and then I did have four jobs. I lost -- no, I had three jobs, I lost two, and I'm keeping one, and that just is just -- I'm just working 20 hours. And the problem is that I wouldn't like to lose my house, because it's a very nice house, a good house in a good neighborhood, and I fix it the way I want it. And I spent a lot of money doing all the improvements. And right now I haven't been able to make the payments for the last three months. And you know how the situation is in the country. My wife is also working. She's 70 years old. She's ill. And the way -- and she's ill and she's still working. And she works very few hours, and sometimes -- some days they call her, sometimes they don't, and we have a real financial problem. I talked to an attorney in Fort Myers, and he said the best thing that I can do is just go foreclosure. I would not like to get to that point, but since the situation -- the situation is the way it is, and I'm going to have to get to that point, but, really, I wouldn't like to lose my house. Because of so many hours for my family and working and money, and all that costs me a lot of money. I did not get the money out of the house. It was just out of my hard work. And I'm really hurt of what is going on right now. I would like to know if you could please help me with a resolution or to come into an agreement. I will agree to keep on fighting, go ahead, to see what we can do about it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Could you please ask the respondent -- he had a permit pulled for all of the improvements, but not all of the inspections were passed. MR. MOSQUERA: I went to the city and exposed my problem Page 18 September 22, 2011 to what was going on, and he said that I had to do it all over again, get the permission, and I said how -- I'm not going to be able to do that because I don't have the money. All the planning, it cost me $900, and the other one was about $600, and the permits are -- all cost money. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The problem with it is when you don't get your inspections within six months the permits expire, and they require you to pull a whole new permit. MR. MOSQUERA: That's true. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. MOSQUERA: I didn't know that -- I did not know that. I didn't know that. If I had known that, I would have not let the permits expire. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Even if he did a permit by affidavit, he would still have to reapp and open the permits, correct? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. Did you do the work, or was it done by a contractor? MR. MOSQUERA: I did it, but it's perfectly done according to the regulation, and I am a constructor. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there a record of what inspections have been done? MR. MUCHA: As far as the fence and the shed, no inspections were done, and the inspections that I saw that were done for the garage conversion and the enclosure of the porch, none of them had actually passed. They all had failed. MR. KAUFMAN: So the floor elevation and the -- MR. MUCHA: I can't be specific about what inspections failed. I just know from looking at it that they're -- because there's so many, and they weren't all complete, and the ones that I saw that were done Page 19 September 22, 2011 had actually failed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Just one. Is anybody occupying the garage or the enclosed porch at this time? THE INTERPRETER: If it's being occupied? MR. MIESZCAK: Are they being occupied at all, the garage or the -- MR. MOSQUERA: Yes. The idea was to make, like, a game room, but now one of my wife kids is living there. But it's open. It's open to the house. MR. MIESZCAK: So it's being occupied? MR. MOSQUERA: Yes, a son. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Based on the photos and the testimony, I'd like to find that the respondent is in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We did find that he is in violation for not having the permit finalized, okay. Joe, do you have a recommendation? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is that the Code Page 20 September 22, 2011 Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when a violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're a gentleman for making it easy on the translator. Sir? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a comment. How long does he feel it will take to get enough money together to get permits to get it inspected? MR. MOSQUERA: I just add $80? MR. KAUFMAN: No. The $80 is the, if you will, court costs. MR. MOSQUERA: Hoy? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Si. MR. MOSQUERA: Today? And how much money do I have to pay for the other one? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, when the permits were originally pulled, there were two fees. One is for addition of square footage in the residence, and the other is the normal permitting fees. The additional fees to add the square footage has probably been paid. So what is left is the cost of pulling the building permits. To get -- I don't know how much money that is. He would have a better idea by talking to the Building Department. Page 21 September 22, 2011 What I would like to propose is that we give him enough time to gather the funds necessary to get the permit and all the inspections. MR. MOSQUERA: But I don't know how much will be the permit. I don't know -- I don't have a job. I lost my truck. With transportation, I'm picking up boards (sic), so I'll be able to pay some bills. I lost my Direct-TV antenna. I lost everything. MR. KAUFMAN: What I was trying -- what I was trying to come up with was a solution to the problem. It is not a solution to say that I don't have the money and don't know if I ever will have the money. If that's the case, then we will have to decide what the dates and costs would be. MR. MOSQUERA: For an extension? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, what we can do is give him sufficient time to accumulate the funds necessary and get the inspections completed and bring everything into compliance. As far as the board is concerned, it would just be the -- if he brings it into compliance within what we set up, it would be the $80 plus whatever it costs to get the building permit reissued. MR. MOSQUERA: Is it possible six months? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MOSQUERA: Okay. Let's go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: Any other discussion from the board? I know we have a problem with that space being occupied when it's -- there's electrical. Is there plumbing in that addition also? MR. MOSQUERA: Yes, and also electric. The electric work was my son-in-law, and he's a professional electrician company. I don't remember the name right now. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm ready to -- with the nods from the board, as far as the six months -- and I would propose a $200-a-day fine after that based on what can be resolved. Maybe we can have somebody go in there and just make sure that the plumbing and the electrical can stand for six months. Is that possible? Page 22 September 22, 2011 MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh. MR. MIESZCAK: Or if we had his word that he wouldn't occupy it. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about making part of the order that within seven days he would vacate the enclosures, the garage enclosure and the other enclosure -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Porch. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- porch enclosure, thank you, vacate it and let the code enforcement investigator inside to make sure that that's the case? MR. KAUFMAN: That's possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: We would have to attach a fine to that, too. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you explain what Mr. Lefebvre just said. THE INTERPRETER: I just did. MR. KAUFMAN: And his comments on that? MR. MOSQUERA: I don't agree with that, because it's part of the property. What am I going to do, just open up the garage again? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it's not part of the property until it's got a CO. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Certificate of occupancy. It's the final on the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: The board -- we have to look out for the welfare of the community, and since it has not been inspected, we don't know if there's some dangers and a chance that there may be a fire. So that's why we want it to be vacated until all the permits have been pulled, the inspections, and a certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Not the whole house, just those two rooms. MR. MOSQUERA: Just the garage? MR. LEFEBVRE: Garage and the enclosed porch. MR. MOSQUERA: There was a back door to the porch. That door doesn't exist anymore. Page 23 September 22, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Into the kitchen. MR. MOSQUERA: Between the kitchen and going to the new porch, there is a door. There's a bathroom, there's a small TV room. There's a small place for the dining room, and then another small room for my wife's sewing machine. And all that, I would have to put it inside the house and empty that area? MR. KAUFMAN: From a practical standpoint, it seems that, to me, that the best solution would be to see if we can get somebody from the county out there to take a look at the addition and see that it's safe. MR. LEFEBVRE: But that's what the permit and inspection period is -- inspections are, and without paying for that, we can't put it on the county to go out and do that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I would be comfortable as long as I knew someone wasn't sleeping in those rooms. MR. MIESZCAK: That's what we're talking about, the safety factor of somebody sleeping in that room. MR. KAUFMAN: But it is a bedroom. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I don't think he understands. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me see if I can -- MR. MOSQUERA: That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They won't sleep in the room?. MR. MOSQUERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And we can show the investigator within a week that the beds have been moved out? MR. MOSQUERA: Okay, no problem. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'll go back to the time frame. To get all of the inspections, building permits pulled, everything that needs to be done, six months. If it's not completed within six months, he can either come back to the board and ask -- and ask for additional time, or if he doesn't do that, there will be a lien of$200 a day on the property. Page 24 September 22, 2011 In addition -- that's the first part. The $80 will be paid within 30 days and, finally, that the respondent allows the code enforcement officer to take a look at the addition to make sure nobody is sleeping in that space. MR. LEFEBVRE: I need a time period, and is there going to be a -- MR. KAUFMAN: Seven days. MR. LEFEBVRE: And is there going to be a fine if there is a bed or whatever in there? MR. KAUFMAN: The fine will be $100 a day for that. MR. MOSQUERA: No problem. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. One more piece of advice for him. We know he has to go and get new permits. We're going to -- hopefully he can use the same permits that he pulled in 2006 but just reapply them. If he's able to do that, he may be able to hire an engineer to look at what he's done and have an Page 25 September 22, 2011 engineer sign off without having to have all of the individual inspections completed by the county. It may be faster and cheaper. MR. MOSQUERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MOSQUERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. MR. MOSQUERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If we can, we'll move back to our first case under hearings, C 1, Fakahatchee Trace, LLC. I apologize, gentlemen. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record? MR. SNOW: Good morning, board members. The order from the last -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just for the record, if you want to state your name. MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Kelly. Kitchell Snow, K-I-T-C-H-E-L-L, S-N-O-W, Collier County Code Enforcement. The order from the last proceedings was to see if we could get on and do an inspection for the property. We contacted all the folks that were going to be involved, including the Sheriffs Office. There was some concern over the legality between -- which our county attorney stated, between the tenant and the property owner. We attained an inspection warrant. We just got that recently. We had to go to Circuit Court to get that inspection warrant. That warrant's going to be served tomorrow. We do have the tenant here today, and we also have representatives from the property owner. So we prefer to wait and appear before the board next month to give you our findings, for the case to be heard, if it's necessary. So we would ask a stay for an additional 30 days, but we are moving forward. Page 26 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. First of all, thank you very much for complying with the order and coming back in front of us this month. Does anybody have any objections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to bring this back in 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. MS. RAWSON: For procedural purposes, wouldn't it be just easier if the county withdrew it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because it was our order and we told them they have to come back in 30 days -- MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- they're executing it. MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. SNOW: That's why we're here. MS. RAWSON: Okay. So it's your motion for stay for 30 days? MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're motioning, the original motion, to just stay that one; is that what we're saying? MS. RAWSON: I think so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Okay. THE COURT REPORTER: Who was the second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: That's what we mean. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're okay with that? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you're okay with the second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any discussion? Page 27 September 22, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, Julio Rodriguez. Is the respondent here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the investigator, Janice Potter, here? MS. POTTER: Good morning. MR. KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Description of violation: The following permits are expired: 2003061529 for a pool; 200302602 for a pool cage; and 2003020399, screen enclosure with pan roof. Also fence on property with no valid Collier County building permit. Location/address where violation exists: 2620 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 40295960009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Julio C. Rodriguez, 2620 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Page 28 September 22, 2011 Date violation first observed: May 16, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 5, 2011. Date on by/which violation to be corrected: August 26, 2011. Date of re-inspection: August 29, 2011. Results of the re-inspection: The violation remains. MS. POTTER: Hi. Good morning. For the record, Janice Potter, investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110006525, violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and the Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1 . The violation is located at 2620 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio ID 40295960009. Notice of violation was posted and mailed on August 5, 2011. I'd like to present three photographs. The first is taken of the fence taken by myself on May 16, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me make a motion that we accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Page 29 September 22, 2011 MS. POTTER: And the second two are GIS aerial photographs; one taken 2004 of the property and the second taken 2011. That shows the screen cage, the pool, and the pan roof. MR. KAUFMAN: They grew? MS. POTTER: Okay. On May 16, 2011, while on patrol, I observed a vacant home with overgrown weeds and grass. After requesting a copy of the property card, I discovered that there were three permits with certificates of completion/occupancy outstanding. One is for a pool; the last inspection was performed in August of 2003. A screen enclosure, pan roof; last inspection performed in February of 2003. And a screen enclosure; the last inspection was performed in August of 2003. There was no -- there's a fence on the property with no Collier County building permit. These violations were to be corrected by August 25, 2011. As of today, the violations remain. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any additional photos? MS. POTTER: I do not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The charging documents talk about permits that were pulled but never CO'ed? MS. POTTER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a copy of the permit showing where it was never CO'ed? MS. POTTER: I do. I have a copy of all the three permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it in the privy for anyone to see it? MR. KAUFMAN: What year were they pulled; 2000? MR. LEFEBVRE: '3. MS. POTTER: The screen cage was pulled in 2003. The pool was also pulled in 2003. The pan roof was also pulled in 2003. It's all the same year. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know if the home's in foreclosure or lis pendens? Page 30 September 22, 2011 MS. POTTER: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find the house -- the respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MS. POTTER: I do. The recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violations are abated; Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Page 31 September 22, 2011 Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: What were the costs, eighty dollars -- MS. POTTER: They were $81.43. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the respondent? MS. POTTER: No, not at all. MR. KAUFMAN: My concern on this one, as has been going on for quite a while, is that this house somehow gets back on the market and sold to somebody who now has this problem. So I'm going to make a motion with a shorter time frame than I would ordinarily make just to make sure that that does not happen. So I'd like to make a motion that we find them -- give them 60 -- excuse me -- 30 days and a $200-a-day fine thereafter. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Did we discuss if there is a pool? MS. POTTER: Yes, there is. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it secured? MS. POTTER: Yes, it is. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have an acceptance of the -- a motion to accept the county's recommendation, 30 days, $200 per day. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 32 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Thank you, Investigator. MS. POTTER: You're welcome. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, could we take a recess? We're having some technical issues. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Be happy to. We'll take 10 minutes, 15 minutes? MS. BAKER: Not sure how long it's going to take, but -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll -- 10 minutes; 10-minute recess. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. Next case is going to be Sandra Sage. Is the respondent here? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. MR. AMBACH: Good morning. I received an email -- MS. BAKER: Hold on. This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 2.02.03. Description of violation: The storage of several boats and unlicensed trailers on this property not identified as the property owners and an allowable use for the agricultural zoning district where the property is located. Location/address where violation exists: 3135 Ravenna Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 00209120008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Sandra S. Sage, 3135 Ravenna Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: October 25, 2010. Date owner/person in change given notice of violation: June 17, Page 33 September 22, 2011 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 7, 2011. Date of re-inspection: July 18, 2011. Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. MR. AMBACH: Good morning. For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. I did receive an email this morning from the owner's daughter stating that the owner will be out of state or out of town until December. Just leading into this, I have posted this -- the property several times. The owner's daughter actually lives right next door. With that I'd like to present the case this morning. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20100019962 dealing with the violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 2.02.03, the storage of several boats and unlicensed trailers on this property not identified as the property owner's and an allowable use for the agricultural zoning district where the property's located. Location address: 3135 Ravenna Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34120: Folio No. 00209120008. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Nine photographs taken on October 25, 2010; one photograph taken on July 20, 2011; eight photographs taken September 21, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 34 September 22, 2011 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. AMBACH: This case initiated as a complaint on October 25, 2010, for the property being used as a storage center for trailers, recreational vehicles, and cars, as well as a fee paid to the property owner to store these vehicles on the property. On my initial visit, I observed several boats and trailers, some without current license plates affixed and some covered with tarps, parked throughout the property. I was told by the owner's daughter who lives on the adjacent property that her mother no longer lives at the property and the boats and trailers are owned by family members and a family friend and are stored there but at no time was a fee paid for storage. I explained research was needed into allowable uses for agricultural-zoned districts for the storage itself. After researching I found the storage was not considered allowable in that zoning district, and a notice of violation was sent to the owner as well as a courtesy copy posted on the property in question. I was able to determine only one boat was removed after the compliance date on the notice of violation, and the case was prepared for Code Enforcement Board hearings as a result. As of September 21, 2011, the violation remains. This week I ran one tag on one of the boats that I -- that was actually visible, and the owner and address comes back to a property off of Davis Boulevard clear on the other side of the county from where this property is. I received a determination letter from Ray Bellows, the zoning and planning manager, and I posed this question: Property is zoned ag, agricultural, and is being used to store several recreational Page 35 September 22, 2011 vehicles, such as boats, RVs, and trailers not owned by the property owner. There is no evidence any profit is being made from the outside storage, only that the recreational vehicles are not owned by the owner. They belong to friends/family members. My question to him was: Is the owner allowed to store recreational vehicles at no profitable charge, that they do not belong to the property owner or any of the home occupants? My answer back from Mr. Bellow's was: The recreational equipment that is not owned by the property owner or the home's occupants must be removed. The agricultural zoning district does not permit the outside storage of recreational vehicles that do not belong to the property owner or the home's occupants even if it's not-for-profit storage. Furthermore, the storage of recreational equipment and vehicles not owned by the property owner residing on the subject property is not an accessory use to the residents. It is also not an accessory use to a use permitted by right in the agricultural zoning district. That's -- MR. KAUFMAN: Let's look at the pictures. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can we take a look at the photos? MR. AMBACH: This is a copy of the zoning for where this property is located. You'll see the "A" stands for agricultural. In this picture a boat -- covered boat in a recreational vehicle, RV, park. Again, some more photographs. MR. KAUFMAN: I saw a for-sale sign on the property in the first picture. MR. AMBACH: There is a for-sale sign, correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Was that a Michigan plate on the last -- MR. AMBACH: That is a Michigan plate, correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Very good. MR. KAUFMAN: Looks like a boatyard. MR. L'ESPERANCE: There is a single-family residence on this Page 36 September 22, 2011 property? MR. AMBACH: There is. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Nobody occupying the single-family residence? MR. AMBACH: Not at this time. MR. KAUFMAN: When you spoke with the respondents, what did they say about this? MR. AMBACH: Well, when I spoke with the daughter on my initial visit, she admitted to me that they were storing family members' and friends' recreational vehicles and boats on the property. I've posted that property at least five separate times for legal notice, and on every posting I always leave a copy of a business card, my phone number for a contact back. When I go back to recheck the property, those postings are always removed. Even when it was raining I put them in plastic and attached them to a metal wire and put it right out in the right-of-way. So I've not heard back from anyone in that family since this case started. MR. KAUFMAN: Not even the people who own the property who live out of state? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 37 September 22, 2011 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation? MR. AMBACH: I do, thank you. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Cease and desist use of agricultural zoned property as storage for recreational vehicles and trailers not owned by the property owner/occupants and remove to a place intended for such storage use within blank days of the date of this hearing or a fine of blank a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question or three. We have guidelines that we use, and I just wanted to go over a couple of them. One it says, vehicles without a tag. Would you consider one or more of those vehicles a vehicle without a tag? MR. AMBACH: There are more than one vehicle out there, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Without a tag, okay. MR. AMBACH: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, that's one. Parking on the grass? MR. AMBACH: That would not be an issue in that zoning district. Page 38 September 22, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: And recreational vehicles, what? MR. AMBACH: Again, pretty free to park the vehicles anywhere they want on the property in agricultural zoning districts. MR. KAUFMAN: That's if they own the vehicle? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: And they don't? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, if you want, I'll take a shot at it. The fine -- I'll start with the 80.57 to be paid within 30 days. The fine that I propose is $150 a day, and the time limits on it I'm going to make three days, they comply within three days. That's also part of our guidelines. One of them is the next day, so three days, I think, is generous. MR. AMBACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, any problem with three days compliance? MS. RAWSON: Well, it will probably be longer than that before they get the order. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it will be okay then? MS. RAWSON: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: How many vehicles are we talking? MR. AMBACH: Total, four boats, two trailers, and an RV. MR. LEFEBVRE: How many of them are registered? MR. AMBACH: Legally? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well -- MR. AMBACH: One that I know of. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. When I ask that question, yes. MR. AMBACH: Yes, I'm sorry. Yeah, the others do have plates affixed, but I cannot see -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I think three days is a little bit short. I Page 39 September 22, 2011 know it's been an ongoing problem, but I think three days may be short. I think to get everything registered and so forth, I think 14 days would be a little bit better. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it's not getting them registered. They don't belong to them. MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: So it's not getting them registered. I'd be willing to go five days, but I think we need to send the message to these folks. At least we'll get them in a response mode, I would hope, but -- let me modify my motion to make it five days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone want to discuss that, or is there a second on the pond (sic) case? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was from? MR. KAUFMAN: Lionel. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Lionel? Okay. Any discussion? MR. MIESZCAK: I guess my only problem with the days are, like I say, it might be -- the girl that lives there, it might be her kid or son or something. By the time they call them up and get them out there to get the trailer, boat, whatever, removed, three to five days does seem real short, you know, and I'm kind of thinking, 14 days -- I like 14 days. MR. KAUFMAN: I was just looking at the guidelines that we have been given. Vehicles without a tag, three days -- MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: -- is the guideline. Recreational vehicles, next business day. So I think five days is generous. MR. MIESZCAK: I guess I'm bringing that up, because, one point. It might just be their friends. Maybe they live in the home and their friends are parking their stuff there. By the time they get the call and get them down here and whatever to move them, that's all. It wasn't -- I don't think somebody's just doing it on purpose. They're Page 40 September 22, 2011 letting them, as a nice gesture, to be on their property, and now they've got to notify them in three days that they're going to have a problem, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: I look at this from the perspective of a maybe neighbor who's looking out their window and seeing these every day -- for how long did you start on this? MR. AMBACH: This is about nine months. Almost a year, actually. MR. KAUFMAN: Almost a year, and you've tagged them five times? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that's more than sufficient time to get them to notify their friends that they need to do something. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate the urgency Mr. Kaufman's putting forth, and I also appreciate the -- you know, extra little bit of time to get them out of there. Also I want to point out that those guidelines may be for respondents who are here. You know, maybe they could start working on it right away. So I'm kind of in the middle as well. So anyone else? Lionel or Jim? MR. LAVINSKI: I think, you know, the respondent not being here, they certainly had time to have someone come in their place. So I don't feel that's any part of it. I think the five days is more than sufficient after the time that this has been dragging on. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I also feel that the respondents would have the opportunity to come back to us and request a reduction in fines if we're so requested, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor of the five-day motion, signify by saying aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 41 September 22, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Oppose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One opposition, and it was Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Gerald was the one opposed, so it does pass. Jean, did you get that? It was five days, 150 a day. MS. RAWSON: I did. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you, Investigator. The next case is going to be Valorie Lojewski. Did I say that right? MR. AMBACH: Yes. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Pool and garage conversion on Estates zoned property without Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 37220800008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Valorie K. Lojewski and Carol E. Nelson, 3216 Northeast 127th Place, Anthony, Florida, 32617. Date violation first observed: October 30, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 19, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 19, 2011. Date of re-inspection: August 5, 2011. Page 42 September 22, 2011 Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. MR. AMBACH: Again, for the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080015799 dealing with the violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), pool and garage conversion on Estates zoned property without Collier County permits located at 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37220800008. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Four photographs dated July 23, 2009, and one photograph dated September 21, 2011 . MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. AMBACH: This case initiated as a complaint October 30, 2008, for several unpermitted structures and unpermitted pool and garage conversion. Research was conducted and no permits were found. The property owner at the time was working on obtaining all required permits; however, the property eventually fell into foreclosure, and the case was transferred to the foreclosure team. After receiving this case in November 2010, I made a site visit and spoke with the tenant. He advised me all unpermitted structures Page 43 September 22, 2011 had been removed; however, the pool and garage conversion continued to exist without permits. He stated the owners had moved out of the area, and I was given their contact information. I spoke with owner Carol Nelson who advised me she purchased the home and was unaware the violations existed. She stated she attempted to rectify the violations; however, due to the economy, the property had fallen into foreclosure, and she had no plans to correct the violations at this time. As of today the violation remains, pool and the garage conversion. Okay. This is the interior of the garage. It's basically just the garage walls were repainted a softer color, and an office was moved into that area. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you go back to that picture a second. So it's not a bedroom? It's a -- MR. AMBACH: It's an office. MR. KAUFMAN: It's an office, okay. MR. AMBACH: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Looks like air conditioning was added? MR. AMBACH: Yes, there was, yes. And this is a view from the front of the house. You'll see to the right in the photograph that where the door is, that's the new front of the garage. And this was my photograph yesterday from the fence line. I was not able to get on the property. MR. KAUFMAN: You climbed a tree there? MR. AMBACH: Did a pretty good job, huh? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. AMBACH: That was actually from the right-of-way. I had to wait for the wind to blow at the right time to click the picture. Just to give you a little background on this case, there were several unpermitted buildings, structures, lean-tos, car ports, so on, so Page 44 September 22, 2011 forth, and the owner at the time did take care of a lot of issues on that property. She did meet with the permitting department as well as the original investigator on this case, and they sat down and went over exactly what was needed for the pool and the garage conversion. At the time, also the screen cage around the pool was unpermitted. She actually did pull a permit for that, and that was CO'ed, but when it came to the pool itself and the unpermitted garage conversion, she had just -- she threw her hands up at that point and said, it's in foreclosure, and I'm not going to put any more money into it, so -- So time extensions were given on this because she was making a good-faith effort to rectify everything but, unfortunately, the economy took its toll on her and, you know, that's where we are today. MR. KAUFMAN: When did she purchase this; do you know? MR. LEFEBVRE: '04. MR. KAUFMAN: '04? MR. AMBACH: That sounds about right, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: It was October '04. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find the home -- the respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 45 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. Do you have a recommendation? MR. AMBACH: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, 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; Number 2, utilities are to be turned off to the garage area within blank days of this hearing until permit has obtained a certificate of completion/occupancy or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; and, Number 3, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a minor change. In Paragraph No. 2, second line where it says "days of this hearing until permit has obtained," should it be "until respondent has obtained"? MR. AMBACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or permit has been attained. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or permit has been obtained. MR. AMBACH: Oh, permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: But that respondent probably would be better. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Either way. MS. BAKER: Just for clari- -- what they're saying there is the Page 46 September 22, 2011 permit has to get the certificate of completion/occupancy is how that is reading. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Oh, I see. MS. BAKER: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: My concern on this particular case reverts to cases that we've already heard where this is in foreclosure. The last thing that we want to happen is that this property winds up being sold to somebody else who then has the same problem. So when we come up with the time to rectify the situation, it has to be somewhat on the short end of the stick. As far as the other point that you're making here about turning the electric off, I don't know -- it's not occupied? The house is not occupied? MR. AMBACH: It is occupied, sir, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, it is. MR. AMBACH: Yes, there is a tenant in there now. He's told me he's not using that area any longer; however, they are still living there. MR. KAUFMAN: I just -- every time I hear electric turned off, I think of mold, and that's a concern that I have. If you turn the electric off, you may be creating a bigger problem in that house. So those are my comments. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I applaud the investigator for adding that line, you know, presuming that we would probably want something like that done. MR. AMBACH: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Nicely done. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a comment. It doesn't matter if we ask the respondent to abate the violation within 30 days or 6 months; it's still recorded, correct? Page 47 September 22, 2011 MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it doesn't really matter, the time frame? MS. RAWSON: It's -- the time frame has to do with when you get the case back to impose the fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right, but it's still going to be recorded on land records, so if someone does a search, they're going to see that there's a pending case. MS. RAWSON: Oh, sure. They'll record it probably next week. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So if someone comes to buy the property or the bank foreclosed on it, they'll see that there's an outstanding case. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: No matter if it's 30 days or 60 days to abate. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that by going with a shorter time frame you motivate the bank to get off their backside to do something; otherwise, they have no incentive to do anything. If you give them six months, they'll wait six months. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes and no. If you impose a fine after 30 days, and let's say they take the property in 90 days, they have 60 days that they potentially have to pay for a fine, which might discourage them from taking the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Diane? MS. FLAGG: Just as clarification, what the banks pay attention to is once fines are imposed, not the orders. So the shorter time frame for the finding-of-fact order followed by whatever that compliance date is it comes back for an imposition, that's when they take notice. MR. KAUFMAN: So if you'd like to add any other comments, or I'll make a motion on this. Two hundred dollars a day as far as the fine; the 81.15 within 30 days; the electric turned off. I guess, for safety reasons, we have no choice but to do that; and the 30 days to complete this order. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So 30 days for both the electric and to Page 48 September 22, 2011 complete all of the fines? MR. KAUFMAN: The electric should be seven days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So the -- No. 1 would be 30 days with a fine of$200 per day, you said? MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And No. 2 would be 7 days and $200 per day, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: James. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And -- by Jim Lavinski. Discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I have discussion. In the previous case we asked that the respondent vacate the area that is not permitted until he has a permit. I'm a little bit leary of telling someone to turn off electricity, just for the fact that there may be a mold issue and wouldn't want the liability to fall upon us that we asked the respondent to turn off electricity. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Investigator, could you repeat your comments earlier when you said that when they converted the garage into living space the only thing they did was repaint the walls. MR. AMBACH: Yeah. It was just -- basically it's still a garage; they just put a front fascia on it with a door and a window to go in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. AMBACH: It has its existing electric that any garage would have in any home, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So there -- MR. AMBACH: No modifications to the floors or drywall or ceiling or anything like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just the air conditioning was added, but there was no -- Page 49 September 22, 2011 MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And turning the electric off in the garage is not going to stop air conditioning from pumping in. MR. AMBACH: Actually, it won't in this case because there is a laundry facility in the kitchen. Actually, you can see it right through the door, so it would get some sort of ventilation through that area. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. AMBACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, thanks for that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Investigator. Okay. Next case, Pinegate 135, LLC. Is there a representative here? No. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Alteration of interior office without Page 50 September 22, 2011 permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4075 Pine Ridge Road, Unit 4, Naples, Florida, 34116. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Pinegate 135, LLC, care of Square Mile Capital Management, LLC, 450 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10022, and registered agent NRAI Service, Inc., 515 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301. Date violation first observed: January 26, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: June 7, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 1, 2011. Date of re-inspection: August 9, 2011 . Results of the re-inspection: The violation remains. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, property-maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110007295 dealing with violations 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) described as interior office remodel without permits. Violation location is 4075 Pine Ridge Road, Unit 4, Naples, 34116; Folio number is 37930510002. Proof of service was obtained on June 9, 2011, by return receipt from certified mail. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: I have three photographs taken by myself on January 26, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 51 September 22, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: This first photograph's going to depict that -- basically this case was initiated by the fire marshal who was going out to do his inspection and had observed that they had enclosed an office inside. This is a -- like a doctor's office, that -- and it's in a commercial building. So I went out and took a picture of that. And this is kind of how he recognized that the office had been enclosed, because the fire sprinkler was, you know, right next to the wall, and that's not how -- where it was on his last inspection. And just basically showing another view of the backside of office. So my case actually started back in January. And the property actually sold to a new owner in June, so I started a new case with the new owner. And then that -- the old owner had hired a contractor, and there was a permit at that time in apply status. So on -- I checked again on July 2nd, and I observed that the permit had finally been approved, because I think they had to do some corrections along the way, and it was in ready status as of June 29. I checked the permit again on August 1st, and the permit had -- was still in ready status. So at that time I contacted the contractor who stated that they had not picked up the permit because they had not been paid by the new owner. And as of September 19th -- the permit has been issued as of September 6th. I spoke to the contractor this week, and they're scrambling to get all the work done. As of today, they had not Page 52 September 22, 2011 completed all the inspections, so -- but I think it will be done pretty quick here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Not questions, but a comment. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: It looks like Wells Fargo foreclosed on the property, and they received a certificate of title on March 16th, and then it was sold to the current respondent; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir, that 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 or demolition permits, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of Page 53 September 22, 2011 blank for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Anyone want to take a stab at it? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at it. Eighty eight-six to be paid within 30 days; $100-a-day fine after 60 days. Hopefully everything will be done within 30, but that's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Joe. Okay. Next case, Case No. 11, Ofelina and Dean Patten. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, yes. Excused absence. We knew about this ahead of time. He had to leave early for an important Page 54 September 22, 2011 meeting. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Have a good day. (Mr. L'Esperance is leaving the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The respondent is not here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Swimming pool permit 2004031700 expired on 9/12/04, missing the 10-day spot survey, and fees outstanding; screen cage permit 2004042999 expired on 11/7/04, missing the 10-day spot survey; shed on property, no valid Collier County building permit obtained. Location/address where violation exists: 4530 20th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 39659120001. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Ofelina M. and Dean L. Patten, 4530 20th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: May 31, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: June 3, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 4, 2011. Date of re-inspection: August 15, 2011. Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. MS. POTTER: Good morning, again. Janice Potter, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110007245, violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation is located at 4530 20th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio ID, 39659120001 . A notice Page 55 September 22, 2011 of violation was posted and mailed on June 3, 2011. I have two photographs I'd like to admit into evidence. The first is the screen enclosure and swimming pool taken by myself on June 1, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. MS. POTTER: And the second is a photograph of the unpermitted shed taken by another investigator on June 28, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any more? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept, yeah, same one. Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. POTTER: On May 31, 2011, while researching the property on another violation, I noted that the swimming pool and screen cage did not have certificates of completion. Last inspections performed on both the swimming pool and the screen cage were done in May of 2004. Screen -- the pool is missing several inspections and the re-inspection fees are due as well on the pool. Screen cage is missing its 10-day spot survey. There's no permit obtained for the shed. The violations were to be corrected by July 4th of 2011 . As of today's date violations remain. Page 56 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you put the picture back of the pool, please. Few questions regarding this. It appears that someone came in and covered the pool? MS. POTTER: Uh-huh, it looks like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: It looks like maybe a bank? They usually typically go with, like, two-by-eights or whatever and put some meshing -- mesh over the pool; is that what it looks like? MS. POTTER: Uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: The screen on the lower part of the lanai, is it missing? MS. POTTER: That I do not know. The photograph was taken from the adjacent property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. But from your observation, you couldn't tell? MS. POTTER: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because that would be kind of important to know if there was an imminent safety issue regarding access to the pool. MR. KAUFMAN: It's clean. Can you tell us what you were there investigating originally? MS. POTTER: I was on patrol, and the property had weeds over 18 inches, and there was also litter in the front yard. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it occupied? MS. POTTER: No, it is not. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with respondent whatsoever? MS. POTTER: My supervisor indicated to me that the respondents called yesterday and said that they were not going to be here, and they had nothing to do with the property. They're in foreclosure. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation does exist. Page 57 September 22, 2011 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation? MS. POTTER: Recommendation is that 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: No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is bated; Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation 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 property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation that the respondent pays $80.86 within 30 days, and within 21 days of this hearing a fine of$250 a day. Page 58 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Accepting the county's recommendation, 21 days and $250 per day. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Thank you, Investigator Potter. MS. POTTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That closes our public hearing -- sorry. That concludes our public hearings. Now we're moving on to old business, imposition of fines. First case is going to be Fidel and Esperanza Alviar. The respondents are not here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. This is in reference to case -- CEB Case No. CESD20110000036. To this date they are not in compliance with the CEB order of September 22, 2011 . I think I'm doing your job, sorry. MR. SNOW: You can continue, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Fines and costs to date are described as Ordered No. 1 -- Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between August 28, 2011, and September 22, 2011, total of 26 days, and the total fine is $3,900. The fines due continue to Page 59 September 22, 2011 accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $3,980.57. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lavinski. And, Gerald, do you have a question? MR. LEFEBVRE: I was going to have a question. Has there been any attempt to come into compliance? MR. SNOW: No, sir. None whatsoever. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And motion carries unanimously. Next is going to be Case No. CESD20100004792. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your turn. MR. SNOW: Thank you, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: He's going to let you this time. MR. SNOW: This concerns the Board of County Commissioners versus Enrique and Maria Ruiz. The violations are Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section Page 60 September 22, 2011 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 545 Clifton Street, Immokalee, Florida; Folio is 73181160003. The description and past orders. The description is the shed erected without first obtaining Collier County building permits. And past orders: On November 8 -- 18, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and a conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached OR order of the board, OR4629 and Page 241 for more information. An extension of time was granted on March 24, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4670 and Page 173 for more information. Additional extension of time was granted on July 28, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4708 and Page 1549 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011 . The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period of July -- I'm sorry -- August 28, 2011, and September 22, 2011, 26 days, for a total of$2,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order No. 5, operational costs of$80.57 have been paid, and total amount to date is $2,600. They are not in compliance. They have attempted to come into compliance. They do have a permit, but they realized it's going to take them more time and they know -- we have advised them they'll go before the Board of County Commissioners to come into -- once they come into compliance, we'll take care of that for them. So they are aware of that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we impose. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? Page 61 September 22, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, CESD20110003173, Kimberly Fry. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the board, this is the case we had some additional information left for us. Sorry. Go ahead. MR. MUSSE: For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110003173, Board of County Commissioners versus Kimberly M. Fry. Violation: Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Section 110.4. Location: 6025 English Oaks Lane, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 41883680004. Description: Collier County Permit No. 2005070536 for CBS garage with electric, expired on May 27, 2006. Certificate of completion was not issued. Past orders: On June 23, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4698, Page 1353 for more information. Page 62 September 22, 2011 The property is in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 13, 2011 . Fines and costs are -- to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$200 per day for a period between August 23, 2011, through September 13, 2011, 22 days, for a total of$4,400. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.29 have been paid. Total amount to date, $4,400. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs is paid. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry to make you wait all day, but thank you very much for taking care of it. There are no more further fines owed. MS. FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next Case, Omar Raul Garcia, CEPM20100018330. And the respondent's not here. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 63 September 22, 2011 Reference Case No. CEPM20100018330, violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(12)(i). Location: 10651 Greenway Road, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 00738120003. Description: Broken windows on the main house. Past orders: On January 27, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR4651, Page 592 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Orders Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the period between February 27, 2011, through September 22, 2011, 208 days, for the total of$52,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 4 abatement costs of$759.20 have not been paid. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.29 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $52,839.49. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 64 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the fines will accrue. MR. CONDOMINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next is going to be Carlos Hernandez and Maria Carranza, CEBR20100021320. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to CEB Case No. CEBR20100021320, violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 3.05.08(C), 4.06.05(J)(2), and 4.06.01(D). Location of the violation is 1855 42nd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 35766880005. The violation description is presence of prohibited exotic vegetation on the property and presence of landscape vegetation impeding the site design triangle. Past order: On July 28, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a conclusion of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached order of the board, OR4708, Page 1575, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 3, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between August 28, 2011, and September 22, 2011, 26 days, for the total amount of$5,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order Items No. 2 and 4, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between August 28, 2011, and September 22, 2011, 26 days, for the total amount of$5,200. Fines also continue to accrue. Order Item No. 7, operational costs of 85.72 have not been paid. Total amount due today, $10,485.72. Page 65 September 22, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any discussion with the respondent? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. This property has been vacant since the case was going on. We are in the process of trying to bid this out at the moment, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to impose. MR. MIESZCAK: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next case is going to be Richard Mercer, Jeffrey and Amy Mercer, respondents. No respondent here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement in regards to CEB Case No. CESD20090000870. Violation is of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 1260 17th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 45912400009. The violation description is a storage building on the property that was expanded without permits. Past order: On September 23, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4610, Page 2385, for more information. Page 66 September 22, 2011 An extension of time was granted on January 27, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4651, Page 585, for more information. An additional extension of time was granted on May 26, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4690, Page 270, for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB order as of July 20, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between June 26, 2011, and June 20, 2011 -- I mean, excuse me, July 20, 2011, 25 days, for the total amount of$5,000. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of 81.15 have been paid. Total amount due today is $5,000. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And they have been abated. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, Robert Campbell and Nina Campbell. And we have two cases. This is the one ending in -- well, the CEV20110000842. Page 67 September 22, 2011 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. CEB Case No. CEV20110000842. Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article III, Chapter 130, Section 130-95. Location: 3221 8th Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 39393640009. Description: Unlicensed vehicles on the Estates zoned property. Past order: On August 25, 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, OR4718, Page 2027, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as following: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$50 per day for the period between August 29, 2011, and September 22, 2011, 25 days, for a total of$1,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date $1,330.57. MR. KAUFMAN: Any conversation with the respondent? MR. BALDWIN: I have not had a conversation since the -- with the respondent since the day before the previous hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 68 September 22, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Imposed on that one. Next case is going to be same respondents, the Campbell's, CEA -- CENA2110000844 (sic). (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. CEB Case No. CENA20110000844. Violation: Collier Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article III, Chapter 54; Article VI, Section 54-181. Location: 2331 8th Ave Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio 39393640009. Description: Litter consisting of but not limited to tires, refuse, broken household items, et cetera. Past orders: On August 25, 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, OR4718, Page 2025, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between September 2, 2011, and September 22, 2011, 21 days, for the total of$2,100. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $2,180.86. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. Page 69 September 22, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. The next case -- let me just read it in real quick -- is going to be Robles, CESD20100009519. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: Once again, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. CEB Case No. CESD20100009519. Violation: Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.4.1. Location: 4015 16th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 401048360004. Description of the violation: Expired Permit No. 2007041510 for a framed single-family one-story modular home. Past orders: On July 28, 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, OR4708, Page 1569, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Page 70 September 22, 2011 No. 1 and 2, the fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between August 2, 2011, to September 22, 2011, 26 days, for a total of $3,900. Fines continue to accrue. Order No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $3,980.86. MR. KAUFMAN: Any communication with the respondent? MR. BALDWIN: None. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jen, are we moving on or -- MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Going on to motion for reduction of fines and liens, Letter C. Actually -- I'm sorry, motion to rescind cases, Brown. MS. BAKER: Yes. We have a -- we have two lien orders. There was an order imposing fine lien recorded on April 8, 2011, at OR4670, Page 156, and also an amended order imposing fine lien recorded on May 13, 2011, OR4681, Page 2139. We would like to have both of these orders rescinded, as the property owners are in bankruptcy and we are not wishing to collect Page 71 September 22, 2011 any kind of debt from them at this time. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do I have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. They've been rescinded. MS. BAKER: Okay. And then for Letter D, to amend the original finding-of-fact order for the same respondents, Robert E. and Serita D. Brown, Case CEPM20100018257 recorded on December 2, 2010, OR4629, Page 269. And with the help of Ms. Rawson, we would like to add some verbiage into this order saying that we are not going after the property owner but the property itself. As you may recall, this was a health-and-safety public-nuisance pool case, which the county did go in and abate this public nuisance. So we did want to get that taken care of for the community-welfare sake. So we need to leave the order on the record, but we need to amend it saying we are not going after the Browns for any kind of money for anything. It's just we needed to go in and abate the public nuisance at the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, it's since been abated? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So really there's no issue if we go back and change in any way? Page 72 September 22, 2011 MS. BAKER: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What language do you need help with? MS. BAKER: Jean, what kind of verbiage would you suggest we put in there? MS. RAWSON: Basically we're going to amend the order, and we'll talk about the order specifically -- I'll probably need to get, again, from you the OR and page numbers -- that says we will amend that particular section of the order so that that particular line that said that the county can go in and abate is going to remain in force and affect, but that the reason that we did it was to abate the public nuisance on the property, but the rest of the order insofar as the respondents are concerned will be abated, then I'll get the -- some help from Mr. Wright, the county attorney, on all that language before you see it to sign it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it something that we can do between now and the next meeting and then just bring it back? MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You don't need -- MS. BAKER: No. We need to get it done, so Jean will prepare the order and then have it for your signature when you sign all the rest of the orders. MS. RAWSON: We'll get it done in the next day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the board okay with passing a motion leaving that up to Jean and county staff to take care of? MR. MIESZCAK: Think so. MS. RAWSON: You're basically just giving us two orders to rescind and one order to amend. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you give me, us, an explanation of what has happened; if somebody files for bankruptcy -- MS. FLAGG: Correct. If someone files for bankruptcy, you cannot go after the property owner until the bankruptcy is resolved. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Page 73 September 22, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this order made while they're in bankruptcy or prior to them being in bankruptcy? MS. BAKER: While. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, while they were in bankruptcy. MR. MIESZCAK: I see. MR. LEFEBVRE: So they're protected, basically, is what they are. MS. BAKER: Correct. MS. RAWSON: They're protected. And we don't -- the code people can't always know who's in bankruptcy when we file these cases, and so we went ahead and -- you not only did the order, but you imposed the fines. And then, of course, it got recorded, and I very promptly heard from the bankruptcy attorney, and so he said, "Fix it." So that's what we're trying to do. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if the order was imposed prior to the bankruptcy case, then the county would become a creditor? MS. RAWSON: Right. But this was after, or during actually -- MR. LEFEBVRE: During, okay. MS. RAWSON: But we can't keep up with all the bankruptcies. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But once they come out of the bankruptcy, then we can re-impose the order? MS. RAWSON: Depends, I guess, is the lawyer's answer. You know, it's difficult to discharge all of your debts, including those to the county, but it depends on what kind of bankruptcy it is, too. MR. KAUFMAN: That's decided by the bankruptcy judge? MS. RAWSON: Yes. You know, you can do a Chapter 7, you can do a Chapter 13, which is a wage earner's bankruptcy wherein you actually pay your bills. So if it's owned by a corporation, it could be a corporate bankruptcy. So, you know, I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, but it gets a little tricky for these people who work for code enforcement that they have to try to keep up with all this stuff. Page 74 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't remember; did we make a motion and a second? MR. MIESZCAK: We didn't vote on it yet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know we didn't vote. MS. BAKER: No. We need to do it now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We need an order. MR. MIESZCAK: Wait a minute, Jen. We might want to wait till next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the order would be -- we don't know the exact language, but the order would be to amend the prior motion that we have and leave it up to the board's attorney and the county attorney to write that language? MS. RAWSON: You're amending the order that had the findings of facts and conclusions of law. To the extent that it said that the county could go in and abate the property, we're leaving that section because, in fact, they did that in order to abate the public nuisance. The rest of that is going to be amended to go away because we're not trying to get any money from the respondent. And you're rescinding the two orders that imposed fines against the respondent, because those are monetary fines that go against the property, and all of this is in bankruptcy. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we're not even going after the abatement, the costs of the abatement? MS. RAWSON: Probably not right now. MS. BAKER: Not at this time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I make a motion that we allow the county to amend. I don't know how much more verbiage you need. MS. RAWSON: Amend the order of-- what was that second order? What's the date on that second -- what's the date of the first order? Was this December -- MS. BAKER: The order -- it's recorded at 4629, Page 269. It's recorded on December 2, 2010. Page 75 September 22, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: To amend that order that was just stated. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Now on to new business. Do we have any new business to discuss? How about -- well, there was nothing forwarded on the consent agenda. How about reports? MS. FLAGG: Good morning. MR. MIESZCAK: Good morning. MS. FLAGG: Let me just give you some quick stats for the week of September 8th through September 14th. As you know, the department every week monitors the statistics -- performance statistics of the department. For the week ending September 14, $2.3 million has been spent by the banks to abate code violations at no cost to the taxpayer. They have abated 1,919 code violations. For the week ending September 14, there were 185 new code cases opened; 655 property inspections. A hundred and one cases were brought into voluntary compliance. There were 98 lien searches, and of that 98 there were four with violations. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Page 76 September 22, 2011 MS. FLAGG: And as you-all know, the NABOR, there -- Naples Area Board of Realtors did provide the information that you requested in their newsletter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you. MS. BAKER: And I just have one other thing, too. You were emailed a copy of the date and time for the Florida Sunshine Law and Ethics Workshop, which is October 3, 2011 . If you have not attended, please plan to attend that session. MR. KAUFMAN: How often do you have to attend that session? MS. BAKER: You only have to attend it once. If you'd like to attend it as a refresher, you may, and it will also be televised. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Because we've met with -- I think we were at Horseshoe. MS. BAKER: We did, we did. And we do have some new members that were not at that training as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And are not here. MS. BAKER: Correct, which they've been notified. We'll get back with them again as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: A couple suggestions or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, under comments. I have a couple suggestions. Just wanted to reiterate the ability to use our, you know, tablet or laptop devices. If we could get the orders in PDF version, we can just flip through them real easy and save a bunch of trees. Just a thought. The other idea was, when presenting cases, Jen, when you read the case into the record, the investigators then stand up, state their name and their position for the record but then proceed to read all of that all over again. In the essence of saving time, is it necessary for them to read everything? Couldn't they just refer to the case at hand or what was Page 77 September 22, 2011 just read or something along those lines? Because that's an extra couple of minutes. MS. BAKER: They could. The CEB and the -- we tried to make everything the same for Code Enforcement Board and special magistrate, and special magistrate has a different procedure where we don't read the Statement of Violation into the record. If you would like us to do that, we can. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or if they're more comfortable reading it in, it kind of gets them started on the presentation, maybe you could call the respondent and the case number and let them read everything else, you know, just so there's not so much redundancy. MS. BAKER: And another option, too -- I know it's in your rules and regulations that it's required that that statement of violation be read. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. MS. BAKER: So -- and that's something that you may want to look at in the future. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. We want it being read; absolutely, we want it part of the record. We just don't necessarily need it read twice. MS. BAKER: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that, you know, just in essence it's saving time. And then also I wanted to thank -- I think it was -- Colleen for adding the additional space under stipulations. It makes it real easy to record the items. So those were my comments. Anything else? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one comment, and I may have asked it in the past. The special magistrate swears in an officer once. If they have a case -- first case and then the last case, they don't need to be sworn in again. Is there -- MS. RAWSON: Well, far be it for me to disagree with the Page 78 September 22, 2011 special magistrate, but the reason I think that you need to swear them in again is because it's a different case, a different set of facts, and different circumstances. So you swear them in and they testify about this case that they're telling the truth and then they come back up, you know, two or three cases later, but it's a whole other case. So, in an abundance of caution, I think it's a good idea to swear them in. I mean, we even swear attorneys in, which is fine, because sometimes they're the only person you hear giving testimony, which is really all hearsay testimony. And in a court of law we don't get sworn in. But I don't have a problem with that either, because sometimes that's your only evidence. So -- these guys don't mind being sworn in over and over again. MR. MIESZCAK: I always like that. I always wanted them sworn. MR. KAUFMAN: I thought it wears off after a while, so -- MR. MIESZCAK: I don't mind. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, wait. Next meeting -- real quick. Next meeting's October 27, 2011 . We have a motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: No. Don't second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 79 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we are adjourned. See you next month. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :26 a.m. CODE ENF• : • = •ARD KENNETH KELLY, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 80