Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/22/2012 R March 22, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, March 22, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman Tony Marino Gerald Lefebvre Larry Mieszcak Lionel L'Esperance James Lavinski Ron Doino (Alternate) Chris Hudson (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Colleen Crawley, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Page 1 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Welcome to another edition of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board for March 22, 2012. Just a quick notice before we get started. The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call, please. MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Here. MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. James Lavinski? Page 2 March 22, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because of our full board today, we have two alternates. Mr. Doino and Mr. Hudson will be able to participate in all of our discussions but will not have voting privileges today. Moving on to the approval of the agenda. May I have the approval of the agenda and/or any changes? MS. CRAWLEY: Number 4, public hearings, motions, A, motions, motion for continuance: Number 1, Paul and Kathleen Burcky, CESD20110011764, motion for extension of time; No. 6, Federal and National Mortgage Association, CESD20110009549; No. 7, Carlos Rivers, CESD20110009946; No. 8, Rene Zafra and Marie Zafra, CESD20090008252; No. 9, Janet Sneeden, CESD20110009351; Mr. 99 Cents, Incorporated, 2007050898. Under B; Stipulations, No. 1 is No. 6 under hearings, Anthony Dinorcia, Senior, LLC, 2007100236; No. 2 is No. 7 under hearings, Anthony Dinorcia, Senior, LLC, CELU200100022151; No. 3 is No. 16 from hearings, Eagles Bond Investments, Incorporated, CESD20110005082; No. 4 is No. 9 (sic) from hearings, Carlisle Wilson Plaza, LLC, CESD20110001653; No. 5 is under No. 11 of hearings, Nian Financing Corporation, CESD20110006404; No. 6 is No. 10 from hearings, Serafin Riveron, Junior, and Carida Menendez, CESD20110012707; No. 7 is No. 1 from hearings, Efrain and Marie Arce, CEN20120003503; No. 8 is No. 3 from hearings, Steven J. Sokol, CESD20110001100. Under C, hearings, No. 2, CESD20110006746, Jose Queveto, has been withdrawn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you slow down, please? MS. CRAWLEY: Sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: And could you start again? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yeah, start over. Page 3 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll help keep everybody going. MS. CRAWLEY: Number 13, CESD20110014170, Clara Tarrago has been withdrawn; No. 14, CESD20 -- oh, I'm sorry. I already did that one. Under 5; old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 4, CESD20110001287, has been withdrawn; No. 5, CEPM20110001296, Sergio and Sara Garita, has been withdrawn; No. 6, CESD20090000972, Maria Ramirez, has been withdrawn; No. 7, CEROW20090000973, has been withdrawn; No. 12, CELU20100019844, San -- Juan Sanchez Olivera and Pamela Jean Sanchez, has been withdrawn. And under 6; new business, A, Code Enforcement Board workshop, has been rescheduled to next month, and in addition, B, elections; and that's all. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did you -- what was that about elections? MS. CRAWLEY: An addition under 6. CHAIRMAN KELLY: An addition. So we are doing them this month? MS. CRAWLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that I'll entertain a motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 4 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Moving on to the approval of the minutes from the February 23, 2012 Meeting. Any changes? MS. BAKER: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to accept the approval of the minutes. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the minutes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All in -- any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Abstained.) MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (Abstained.) MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And one abstention due to an absence. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll be abstaining also. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, Gerald abstains as well. Page 5 March 22, 2012 Moving on to public hearings, motions, letter A, motions. Motion for a continuance. Number 1 is going to be Burcky, and that is Case No. 14 in your packet. Is the respondent here? Would you like to come on up? We'll swear you in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. L'ESPERANCE: I don't think the PA system is on. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, could you tap your mic for us. Yeah, that one's not on. K.D., can you check this one again for us, please? MS. ARNOLD: Check, check. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, thank you. Sony about that, okay. Okay. Since this is a motion for continuance, sir, for the record, could you state your name. MR. BURCKY: Paul Burcky. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And also, since you're requesting the motion for continuance, could you tell the board what the circumstances are behind it. We'll see if we can't work something out. MR. BURCKY: I applied for the building permit, and it's in review right now, and I haven't heard back from them as of yet. As soon as it gets approved, then I'll be able to go forward. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any objections from the county? MR. ASARO: No, no objections at all. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: How much of an extension are you looking for? MR. BURCKY: I believe it was 60 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you think that's enough time to hear back from permitting? MR. BURCKY: I hope so, sir. Page 6 March 22, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I make a motion that we extend this for 60 days. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Real quick, do you understand that 60 days gives you enough time -- does 60 days give you enough time to not only pull the permit but then do any type of work necessary to comply with that permit? MR. BURCKY: I believe so, I believe so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thank you very much, sir. Good luck. MR. BURCKY: Thank you, Board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. That concludes our motions for continuance. Now moving to motion for extension of time. Case No. 1, Charles and Laurie Flaum. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. FLAUM: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, can you state your name. Page 7 March 22, 2012 MS. FLAUM: Laurie Flaum. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And we have a letter here explaining the situation, but just in your own words, for the record, do you want to kind of recap? MS. FLAUM: Well, yeah. We had several violations at our home, and we corrected eight of the nine violations already. And I guess since this is our first time ever dealing with this, we didn't realize how much time and money it would take, so we just need more time. We've already applied for the permit to convert the garage to a storage room. And we understand there's going to be a lot of inspections required, engineering inspections. We haven't even started the actual work. So the -- I think the time necessary is to buy us enough time to come up with the money and also to get these inspections handled. We've had the septic inspected, paid for that, paid for surveys. We've spent thousands already just on what we've done. And we just -- I would like to request as much time as possible, because I don't know -- like the gentleman before me, I don't know how these inspections, how long they're going to take, because I know there'll probably be five or six different -- and rumor has it that -- there's -- rumor has it that they fail a lot of people, so you have to go through these inspections more than once. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. In your original letter you requested 120 days. Is that still sufficient? MS. FLAUM: Would it be possible to even have more? I mean, just so we don't have to come back to another hearing, just -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'd be happy to entertain whatever you feel is a necessary time. I think the board likes to see progress, and if you are making all the attempts that you can and it's really more or less an issue with the Collier County Building Department that's causing some of the delays, we understand and appreciate that. At the Page 8 March 22, 2012 same time, we just want to see diligence. We don't want to hang this out for a year. But if you need, you know, more time, now's the time to ask. MS. FLAUM: If I could get six months, that would be nice. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does the county have any objection with a six-month extension? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: For the record, Investigator Michelle McGonagle. Sorry; how's that? No, we have no objections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Any questions by the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I have a question. Is -- the garage that was converted to living, is it occupied? MS. FLAUM: No. MR. MIESZCAK: It's not occupied? MS. FLAUM: The -- it's attached to the main house and we're trying to get it converted to a storage unit. It's got a bunch of furniture in it now, just stored in it. MR. MIESZCAK: I was just concerned it's not lived in. So nobody's living in the garage you just said. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. The -- in the second paragraph you said that you have a problem with a shed that needs to be moved because it's encroaching by five feet. And my question is, are you going to move it or -- MS. FLAUM: We handled that since I wrote that letter. It's gone. MR. KAUFMAN: That's taken care of, okay. You're looking for 180 days. MS. FLAUM: Yeah. Everything, I think, is done except for this last application to convert the garage. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a motion that we extend this 180 days. Page 9 March 22, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have 180 days from today. MS. FLAUM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Good luck. MS. BAKER: Board members, can I just make a suggestion? When you guys are talking, can you make sure that your microphones are real close to you, because we're not picking up all the sound from the board members. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It does seem as though the master volume is lower than normal. MS. BAKER: They're picking it up on the recording. So it's working fine, but we just need to make sure we're talking in the mics. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. It's actually hard for us to hear. MR. DOINO: It's hard for us to hear. MS. BAKER: It's hard for me to hear, too. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Moving on before we get out of control. James and Julia Askey. Are the respondents here? We do have a Page 10 March 22, 2012 handwritten letter in our packet. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, code enforcement supervisor Cristina Perez. I just wanted to give the board a brief update before reviewing the letter. Investigator Eric Short did conduct a site visit yesterday to determine the status of the violation. He was unable to make contact with the occupants or the respondents, but the mobile home in itself has been removed. Some of the debris remains on the property, and the demolition permit remains to be obtained, inspected, and CO'ed since there was utilities connected to the mobile home. So that part of the order still has to be completed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just so I'm clear, you said that a demo permit still needs to be obtained? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So they removed a mobile home with utilities without having the actual permit? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Was the $80.29 paid? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, it has not been paid, which that -- I know there was contact made with the respondent's daughter who had the authority to act on her behalf with this code case, and that was explained that it needed to be paid prior to the hearing or the day of the hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we deny this based on the fees not being paid and a demo permit not being issued. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Page 11 March 22, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. It was denied. Next, moving on to Eric Rodriguez. Is Mr. Rodriguez here? Good morning. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. MR. KAUFMAN: Before we go on, does that mean this case is going to be heard today since the motion -- MS. BAKER: I don't believe it's on the -- I don't believe it's on the agenda otherwise. It will be brought back at a later date. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, can you state your name, please. MR. RODRIGUEZ: My name is Eric Triguero Rodriguez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And we have a letter from you, but just, if you would, recap it for us. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let us know what's going on. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. I have an addition in my house. And I went to all the prints, you know. I work with my engineer and my -- the architect. I did all the prints. I did everything. And I'm finished Page 12 March 22, 2012 with the code -- no. I'm finished with the building department. But the date, the last time I was here I just noticed that I was dealing with the health department, too, because this -- that date that I was here I received a letter from the health department that I have to, like, do an extension to my drain field. I didn't know that. So this is the reason I'm here, because I'm finished with the building department. Everything is closed there. But the health department needs some work from me. I'm asking for more time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you. Investigator, just for the record, would you state your name. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: For the record, Jonathan Musse, code enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Was the health department violation part of this case? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: It wasn't as part of the permitting process where they've got to inspect the septic. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we still don't have a CO? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: No CO. Actually, the permit's ready for issuance. It's a permit by affidavit, and it's ready for issuance. He just has to complete the health department's portion of it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And you're asking for three months? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. I come up with the money, because the contractor that is going to do the job is -- I come up with that money. I've been paying a lot before. I assume that in three months -- you know, the guy is going to start working today at my house. I assume that, you know, I can -- but I got a question. Because I got the money to do this extension, to pay the guy, you know, but after that, for the impact fees, I got to come up with the -- at least $5,000 to complete, you know, to pay in the building department in the growth management. So my question is, do I -- can I pay, you know, in parts, like, do a Page 13 March 22, 2012 loan or something with you guys, pay with money? Because, otherwise, you know, probably in the next two, three weeks, I'm going to finish everything. And I come up with the money for the guy, you know, that is going to do the extension for the health department, you know, to finish with the health department. But once my permit's ready to issue, I have to pay, like, $5,000, and I don't know if-- you know, if I can pay portions or -- I don't want to come here, you know, just because I didn't pay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. So you've increased the size of your home, there's a requirement to increase the drain-field because of the number of occupants now, potential occupants, and now, because of that, there's an additional impact fee that's due. If I'm not mistaken, impact fees are part of the CO, correct? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Unfortunately, they would have to be paid before the permit was finaled and CO'ed, and we need a final or a CO on the permit in order for this case to close. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So as far as I understand, it would all have to be paid. Now, I don't know if the county has any payment plan on impact fees. Does anyone know? MR. KAUFMAN: Nope. We've got -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. Unfortunately, I don't think that they do. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I thought that, you know, three months would be good because it's just -- you know, I got the money to finish the job. That's it. But now, you know, I'm seeing that -- and I don't want to come back in three months and -- because I don't have the money to finish, you know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Make sure you're also extending your permit so it doesn't expire, because they'll naturally expire every six months. So ask for that extension so that you don't have to pay for a Page 14 March 22, 2012 new permit, too. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. After here I'm going to go to -- talk to my agent, my inspector, to see. MR. KAUFMAN: A couple of quick questions. The $81.43, has that been paid? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: That's been paid. This hearing is for an extension of time. We're not hearing the case? CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. MR. KAUFMAN: So we can decide to extend this -- MR. MIESZCAK: Ninety days. MR. KAUFMAN: -- 90 days. You're looking for three more months, and then we'll see what happens then. And in the meantime, I guess you could check with the county to see if you can pay them piecemeal. MR. RODRIGUEZ: So I can get 90 more days? MR. KAUFMAN: That's what you're requesting from your letter. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: If the board approves it, you'll have 90 days to work everything out. MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. I -- first before I asked for 90 days, but now that I know that I have to come up with the money to -- you know, for the CO to be closed, I don't know if I can get the money in three months. It's over -- for the -- MR. MARINO: I have a question. MR. RODRIGUEZ: It's over $80,000 (sic) -- MR. MARINO: How long do you think you need? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I don't know. Probably -- a little more time if you guys can give me. MR. MARINO: How much time? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Because I'm finished with everything. Page 15 March 22, 2012 MR. MARINO: How much time? How much time? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Probably, I don't know, three more months. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about if we extend for 150 days. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, that will be -- MR. LEFEBVRE: And at that point everything would be CO'ed. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to extend this, instead of 90 days, 150 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? My discussion would be if he was going for extension of the permit, which would give him six months, to make things easy and to relieve pressure because of his due diligence in working with us so far, I suggest we match the six-month permit extension on the time allowed for the case. Instead of the 150 days, I suggest 180 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: When's the permit expired? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, almost irrelevant. If he goes for the extension, it will at least give him six months from today. MR. RODRIGUEZ: It's going to be expired in these days, too, so I have to -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very soon. MR. RODRIGUEZ: So I have to go for -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my motion to 180 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Motion and a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 16 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You now have six months. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now next case, Case No. 4, Carlos and Cynthia Gonzalez. Are the respondents here? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: No. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. -- Carlos couldn't come today. He had to work, but he was asking for the extension of time because the permit that he applied and the permit was issued to wasn't CO'ed. It is now, as of yesterday, CO'ed, so he was asking for the extension of time so he wouldn't be fined on a daily basis. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion to extend it 30 days. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 17 March 22, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Great, thank you. And thank Mr. Gonzalez for us, too. Next is Leszek and Henryka Klim. I apologize if I did not pronounce your name correctly. MR. BANSKY: You were close. This is my uncle, Leszek Klim. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now if you would, feel free to introduce yourself for the record. MR. BANSKY: Yes. My name is Peter Bansky. This is my uncle, Leszek Klim. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Peter Bansky. MR. BANSKY: I'm here to help him. MR. LEFEBVRE: He's going to have to be sworn in as a translator. (Peter Bansky, the interpreter herein, was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Polish and Polish into English.) (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Kitchell, do you want to, just for the record -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: Oh. I'm sorry, for the record, Kitchell Snow, code enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Because this is a request from you to extend the time, would you like to just give us a kind of brief idea of what's going on so that we can consider it? Page 18 March 22, 2012 MR. BANSKY: Yes. We were here, I believe it was last May. I was here with my uncle as well. And with the previous investigator, we were asked to apply for a permit, pay the fine, and make his roof shorter by 4 feet, which will be from 14 feet to 10 feet, which was actually going to fix the problem. When my uncle went to the building department to apply for the permit, all he had, you know, pretty much problems to do it. They didn't allow it. They did not allow it. So something else was said here, and he heard something else from the building department, permitting. So what he tried to do with all the paperwork, he also made the new surveys most recently to try to pretty much fix the problem. And it's been sitting at somebody's desk over there for a while. When he received the letter here, notice of hearing extension of time, he went back to the county, and what they told him that -- what he has to do is go to a variance. So petition for variance, which was granted, and we already have a date on April 12th this year. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Supervisor Snow, any objections from the county or any further testimony? SUPERVISOR SNOW: No. They have paid operational costs. And I don't see any reason why the county would object to any extension of time the board would allow. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just, I guess, clarification. If-- so if the variance isn't granted, what's the next step? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, normally, if a variance isn't granted, then he's going to have to either remove or permit what he's got. Now, I would assume this is a variance that talks about an extension on encroachment. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Page 19 March 22, 2012 SUPERVISOR SNOW: That's what we're talking about. So if they wish the time to do that, I think they should be allowed to have that time. They can always come back and ask you for more time if it's granted or denied, if we get to that point. MR. LEFEBVRE: Why were they turned away if they were willing to remove the four-foot section? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I can't answer that question. I don't work in the building department, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, all right. MR. KAUFMAN: I was wondering why -- six months seems like a long time considering this goes back to August of last year. So from August of last year, what was done time-wise between then and, say, January 1st? MR. BANSKY: Well, on my uncle's part, pretty much anything that he could. I mean, he's been numerous times to the building department trying to push them, and I believe it went from -- it went from one desk to another for somebody to -- you know, they wouldn't make a decision. They could not come up with a decision for his problem. So pretty much whatever was said here at a previous meeting, they told him that doesn't really matter what is said here. What's more important is what they say. But at the same time they couldn't really come up with a solution, which was, you know, kind of unusual. I mean, the easiest thing for them is to tell my uncle, okay, remove what you have. But it's not -- it's not the easiest solution. I mean, there has to be a solution to everything. MR. KAUFMAN: The building department is the department that is responsible for issuing permits -- MR. BANSKY: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: -- checking right-of-ways or whatever has to be done. We only rule on whether something is in violation or not. Page 20 March 22, 2012 So anything that we say other than "it's in violation and fix it within a certain amount of time," that all belongs to the building department. It's their purview. So it just seems that six months from now, since this started in August of 2011, seems to be quite a long time. MR. BANSKY: It's a long time, it's a long time. I would think by now it should be resolved. MR. KAUFMAN: And having a variance hearing in April certainly will -- hopefully the variance is granted. It's probably -- is it an administrative variance or a regular variance? SUPERVISOR SNOW: It would be a regular variance. If I can offer a little clarity. Remember when -- your board order is either going to permit or demolition. Now, when they go talk to the building department and discuss something down in growth management, if you really don't know the questions you ask, and it sounds like that's the case in this question (sic), then they don't know what to answer you. So I think this process has led them through a journey, and now they finally decide, yes, this is the process we want to use. We want to keep what we have. We want a variance. And this is not uncommon. Unfortunately, if they don't know the right questions to ask, it gets to that point. And I think this is where we're at now, that they want to keep what they have, so they have the variance. They want to require -- or they're asking to get a variance, and it wouldn't be administrative. It would be just a regular variance. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. No more questions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd just say one thing. I don't have any problem with the six month. I mean, you know, I think there's due diligence here, and the county recommends. So I'd make a motion -- I'd make a motion that we do a six-month extension. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second it. Page 21 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. MR. BANSKY: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Good luck. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next case. It's going to be Federal National Mortgage, which was a new addition to our packet this morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, sir. MR. SIEVERS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, could you state your name, please. MR. SIEVERS: Bob Sievers. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And, also, I assume that you're representing the mortgage association. MR. SIEVERS: Yes, and we received a notarized document from them, and we gave it to Colleen yesterday. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. That's why I was asking. Page 22 March 22, 2012 Since you're requesting the extension of time, would you like to just explain to us what's going on. MR. SIEVERS: They just -- Federal National Mortgage just acquired this property through the foreclosure property -- or process. We find there's a couple of open permits and an unpermitted shed. We're still waiting for the CT to be filed, so we'll have contractors that need to go out there, find out what's involved. We don't know if we have to -- what to do to the -- to get the permit. So we're just asking for an extension since a compliance date was March 21st. Just trying to avoid fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I can appreciate that. Good morning. For the record, do you just want to state your name. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any objection to the extension? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No objection, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. When was the house -- when was the final judgment on the house? MR. SIEVERS: They just acquired it about two weeks ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. So it's going to take another couple weeks for the certificate of title probably. MR. SIEVERS: It takes two to four weeks to get those files. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right. So that's even -- that's 14 days -- let's say two weeks, 14 days. It's going be about a hundred days to complete the work. That -- and being a, I guess, quasi government entity, it might take longer than 120 days to actually get this permitted. MR. SIEVERS: A couple years maybe. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you don't know what kind of issues you Page 23 March 22, 2012 have at the site? MR. SIEVERS: We don't know what's -- we've got contractors getting ready to go out to look at it and, obviously, we'll have to have the permitting department come out and make sure that we're doing what they need. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. SIEVERS: And they go overboard to make sure that they comply. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think it would be out of the question to give a six-month extension. MR. MARINO: Is that your motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Would the county object to that? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Make a motion to extend for six months, 180 days from today. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. SIEVERS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Page 24 March 22, 2012 MR. SIEVERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We heard a case just a little bit ago, James and Julia Askey, and the respondent was not here at the time. It was a motion for an extension of time. And I believe we ruled against the extension; however, Ms. Askey is here and is requesting that we rehear the case. And I'm in support of rehearing it, but it's up to the board to set aside our original motion and order and rehear it. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion to rehear. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can we do that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes, you certainly can. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Let's go back then. And this is going to be, again, James and Julia Askey. Dig up my paperwork. MR. KAUFMAN: Which case number is it? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. KAUFMAN: Is this a new one? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just give us one second. We've got to -- you know, we kind of clear out our books as we go. Just give us a minute. Page 25 March 22, 2012 MS. PASKANIK: That's no problem. MS. BAKER: It was No. 2 from extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. For the record, could you state your name. MS. PASKANIK: Tisha Paskanik. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And your relation to the Askeys. MS. PASKANIK: It's my mother and stepfather. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And, for the record, could you just state that you have their -- you have authority to speak -- MS. PASKANIK: I do have authority for anything that goes on on the property there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a letter that you had written, but since you're here, could you explain to us the situation? MS. PASKANIK: Actually -- well, the letter is a little not important at this point. I have removed, you know, 95 percent. The structure is off. I mean, I have a dumpster there. I have a trailer with wood that I'm going to try to salvage in a separate trailer. I was told that the most critical thing would be to pay the operational costs and, because of my budget, I either did one or the other, so I paid the operational costs. I'm trying now -- I'm going to go back to Horseshoe when I leave here, find out exactly what the permit fee was. I was informed that they need to come back out and just inspect that the electric was disconnected which, when I was here originally, I was told to disconnect it. It was disconnected at the box. So I guess I just have to have the building people come out and verify. I will need, like, a week and a half, maybe two weeks till I'm going to have the money to get that. She thinks it's roughly $80. So, I mean, that's pretty much, you know, where we stand. She said I needed to either get the building permitted -- and after doing my research, I don't think it would have passed the Wind Zone 3 requirement even for a storage building. It has to meet certain Page 26 March 22, 2012 requirements, and I didn't have the money to invest to find out if it was going to pass to find out that it wouldn't. I mean, it required architectural fees, which I had an architect that was supposed to help me who totally backed out on me, and then the additional permitting costs. I mean, you're talking, you know, a couple thousand dollars that I absolutely don't have. So I figured I would remove the structure and make this problem try to go away. I'm -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Real quick, let me ask the county. Is there any way that the county will be able -- not the county as in the Code Enforcement Department, but community development would be able to waive the triple damages since it's an after-the-fact and go back to just the original demo permit amount? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I'm not entirely sure that there are after-the-fact fees on a demolition permit, but we could, you know, check with them on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, okay. Excellent. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yeah. And then earlier when we had first come up, I had checked the operational costs, if they had been paid, and they had not. But in the process of her arriving, you know, they had been paid, so it was probably just -- you know, while we were here, she's over there paying them. And she does have her receipt. I did verify that they were paid. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So recap, operational costs have been paid, 95 percent of the work has been completed. All you really need is a demo permit and a final inspection. MS. PASKANIK: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: How much time do you think you need to have everything all done? MS. PASKANIK: Well, I mean, technically that's pushing it is, like, two weeks as far as for me to get the money together. I'm, like, Page 27 March 22, 2012 basically a single mom with a baby right now. But I was advised by her that that's the time frame that it would need to be in so that by the time I came in front of the board again. I mean, if I could get a 30-day, would be great, because then I know I could come up with the money. But I was going with the idea of trying to get all this done in case it wasn't reheard by the next hearing, you know, by next month. MR. KAUFMAN: How about two months? MS. PASKANIK: That would be wonderful. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion we do 60 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just one comment. The demo permit should have been pulled before any demolition was done on the property. MS. PASKANIK: I do understand. It was a money thing. I mean, everything comes down to pennies and dimes with me. I mean, I am on an extremely tight budget, so I do understand that. I was in the construction business for a long time, so I am kind of familiar with, you know, demolition and the process of said -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It might cost you more, could cost you, possibly, triple the amount. So in the long run it might cost you more. MS. PASKANIK: Well, that would be quite unfortunate for me, but I really -- I had no choice. I had people that were willing to help me at the time. I took advantage of the help that was offered. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's just my comment. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 28 March 22, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any it carries unanimously. Thanks for making it here today. MS. PASKANIK: Yeah, I was -- sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, that's okay. We're happy that we were able to rehear it. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Moving on to the next case, which is Carlos Rivers. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you pull the mic down to you. Thank you. And, for the record, can you state your name. MR. RIVERS: My name is Carlos Rivers. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And we have a letter here requesting a 90-day extension. MR. RIVERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you explain to the board in your own words just what's going on. MR. RIVERS: Yes. From the time I put in my permits for -- legalize my lanai, I no receive no answer. I come in. They say they sent a letter, but I still no receive it. And, you know, I -- if I no letter, you know, it's so hard, you know. I tried to correct it, already, you know. I wait now for the correction of the -- for the plan, the C plan (sic). CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good morning. Page 29 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, Joe. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. He had to submit some corrections, and I think he might have been unaware of-- I guess that's what I'm kind of getting from it is he was unaware that he needed to submit these corrections. And he was down to permitting this week and is working with them on the corrections. So I think he's on the right path to where he needs to be. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any objections to an extension of 90 days? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Has the $79.72 been paid? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion to extend. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And that -- we have a motion and a second. And that was for -- MR. MIESZCAK: Ninety days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Ninety days. MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 30 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Great. Good luck, sir. And Case No. 8 is Zafra. It's an extension for time. And it was Case No. 8 under our imposition of fines. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. ZAFRA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, could you state your name, please. MR. ZAFRA: Rene Zafra. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. And we have email requesting -- MR. ZAFRA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- requesting an extension. Since you're here, could you just describe what's going on? MR. ZAFRA: I've been dealing with this for a while now, and it's been all, you know, because of money. I mean, it's costing me a fortune to do this. But I have been working on it. I finally -- I got my health department permit done. I had to enlarge my septic, which I didn't know. Got it all done, everything's cleared, permit's finished with that. I'm going through building. I turned in my plans for the third time, I think, came back with another rejection. I called Mr. Walsh -- he was the building inspector of my plans -- and we went through everything. I was needing a certification for my windows that I had installed. The ones that I sent, unfortunately, were outdated. I called the manufacturer. They sent me the new one. I sent it to Mr. Walsh. During this process of talking to Mr. Walsh, he says to me, this works -- seems like it's been done already. It hasn't yet. It's been done for over 14 years. And he says, well, this permit that you're applying for is no good. He says, I got to reject it because what you need is a Page 31 March 22, 2012 permit by affidavit to do this. So, basically, I go back to my engineer and my architect, and he says -- he told me he pretty much wasn't going to sign off on permit of affidavit. So I had to go find another architect, another engineer. Right now I'm in the process of that. I hired Reliable Permitting, a professional, to help me do this, because it's just -- to me I thought I could do it. It's just too much for me. I don't understand it, so I hired someone to do it. She's going to resubmit -- Reliable's going to resubmit everything either Tuesday or Wednesday with a permit of affidavit with an architect/engineer. That's why I'm asking for at least 30 to 60 days, and I should be finished with everything. I've already gotten my price for my impact fees, because I do have to do that, and they came out to, like, $2,700. I'm fine with it. I'm going to pay it when my permit comes up. So basically what I'm doing now is just waiting for Reliable to submit my plans by Tuesday or Wednesday and have everything taken care of by then. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Cristina, for the record, sorry. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. We did receive the information from the health department, as he stated, that that permit was issued and the work was completed in order -- you know, for part of this permit to even be issued. And then there was a rejection done at the beginning of the month by Mr. Walsh, as he stated, you know. So speaking with Mr. Zafra, you know, he had that communication. When he first hired his architect, from what he tells me, the architect wouldn't do the permit by affidavit, but said, let's go this route. So they went ahead and they submitted the plans. And once it was mentioned to him again, we won't do it unless it's a permit by affidavit, otherwise they have to tear out, you know, sections of the walls and then, of course, it will be his responsibility to fix them. Page 32 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry you had to go through all that. MR. ZAFRA: That's all right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objection from the county for a two-month extension? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Up to the board's discretion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion that we extend the time two months. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously, two months from today. MR. ZAFRA: Thank you, Board, very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you. Good luck, man. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: We remove this now from the -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can remove it from our imposition of fines. The next one is Sneeden. Are the respondents here? Janet Sneeden? Page 33 March 22, 2012 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a letter from Erik Hester and Janet Sneeden asking for at least six months. Any -- want to state your name for the record, please. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Just to refresh your mind, this is a case that came before you last month. What the board's direction was, was to get together with the building department because we did not know the conditions of the interior of the structure. There were two additions that were made to the mobile home that were unpermitted, and they were asking for an six-month extension at the last hearing. So you guys granted a 30-day extension with direction to the county to do an inspection, which I did go out there with our interim building official and conducted an inspection. And he did provide us with a letter declaring the structure a dangerous building. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have a recommendation on this, by the way? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: As far as their extension, or -- I mean, they had to obtain the permits to, you know, keep the additions or a demolition permit to remove them. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, if it's a dangerous building, that's for us, generally, a big red flag -- SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Right. MR. KAUFMAN: -- that says we don't go forward with this at all. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: That's my comment. MR. LEFEBVRE: Couple concerns I have. One major concern is that it states the property is for sale. It sounds like they have an Page 34 March 22, 2012 interested party to buy it. Would not want this property to transfer without the new party knowing that there's a problem. I'm not in favor of extending -- to make the extension, because I -- not sure if it's going to be -- these issues are going to be fixed prior to the new owner -- SUPERVISOR PEREZ: And I haven't had any communication with, you know, an outside party to make them aware that if they are interested on this property that these are the violations. I mean, there is an order recorded but, you know, if it's a cash transaction and they don't do a title search, they wouldn't, you know, find -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to deny. MR. KAUFMAN: Second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion's been denied. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. And I believe this is the last motion for an extension of time. This is Mr. 99 Cents, Incorporated. Is Mr. Hassam here? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the board, this is Case No. 11 under imposition of fines, and you also have an addition that was added to Page 35 March 22, 2012 your packet this morning. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Hassam wasn't able to come today, but he's asking for a three-month extension. This is his fifth extension. And he has been working really hard to try to permit this addition that was built prior to him owning the building. He has a building permit at this time being reviewed right now to leave the addition. He had a demolition before, and he decided to leave the addition. Now he has gotten a building permit; it's under review. So he's hoping within the next three months that he can have it CO'ed. Operational costs have been paid. There is no electricity running through that section of the building because they did turn it off, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You know our hot buttons. That's good. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: How much time are they looking for? MR. MIESZCAK: Ninety days. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Three months, 90 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Ninety. I'll make a motion we grant 90 days. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 36 March 22, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. And we can remove it from our imposition of the fines. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now we're moving to Letter B, stipulations. First stipulation is Dinorcia. Hope I pronounced it right. MR. KAUFMAN: Which case number is that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That would be Case No. 6 under your standard cases. There's a second case right behind it, same respondent. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to state your name for the record and read the stipulated agreement into the record. INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes. My name is Investigator Hines Box. I'm with code enforcement, Collier County. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hines, real quick. Are you able to hear the investigator? INVESTIGATOR BOX: Can you hear me? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, okay. INVESTIGATOR BOX: Abate all violations by obtaining any and all Collier County permits, inspections through to the certificate of occupancy through or certificate of completion for all unpermitted structures or, alternatively, obtain any and all demolition permits within 120 days or pay a fine in the amount of$200 -- I'm sorry -- or a fine in the amount of$200 will be imposed until the violation is Page 37 March 22, 2012 abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that the respondent -- 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: Okay. Sir, do you agree with everything that was just read? MR. SHANNON: Yes, sir, we do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. And for the record, could you state your name, I'm sorry. MR. SHANNON: My name is Jim Shannon. I'm the contractor that's been hired to try to correct this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And, for the record, could you state that you have the authority to speak on the owner's behalf. MR. SHANNON: I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 38 March 22, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. Going on to the next case, we'll have to re-swear everybody in since it's a different case. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) INVESTIGATOR BOX: For the record, Investigator Hines Box, code enforcement, Collier County. This is regarding Case No. CELU2010002251. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier building permits for all unpermitted improvements or obtain a Collier County demolition permit to restore the property, including the swale, to its originally permitted condition within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine in the amount of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify the code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation to request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violations, 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 costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, again, could you state your name for the record. MR. SHANNON: My name is Jim Shannon. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And then also, since it's a new case, also state that you have the authority to -- MR. SHANNON: I have the authority to respond for the owner. Page 39 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. And you agree to everything that was just read? MR. SHANNON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by -- who was that, Tony? MR. MARINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. Thank you, sir. MR. SHANNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Eagle Bond. That's Case No. 16 under normal case hearings. MR. BOND: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Page 40 March 22, 2012 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 all required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of$150 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: Okay. Good morning, sir. MR. BOND: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, could you state your name, please. MR. BOND: Roy Bond. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Bond, I assume you're the owner of Eagle Bond Investments? MR. BOND: I'm the CEO of Eagle Bonds, yes, sir. That's the family corporation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MR. BOND: I do. I would like to state, this is the third building permit. Originally we were informed that we could not do this work ourselves and we were forced to hire a contractor to do this. We hired three. And as soon as they got all our money, they absconded after doing some work. So, some of the work has been done. There is not much left to Page 41 March 22, 2012 do. However, I hope that the board would be lenient in the event that we will be pushing the 60 days, if we were to ask for an extension, with the understanding we were going to work diligently at it. But I've got a health problem right now, and that's kind of-- I don't know what -- how that's going to turn out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate your concerns. I can tell you that in the past the board has been sympathetic to people who have diligently worked hard to try to resolve situations and had holdups outside of something that they could control, for instance, delays at the county or, you know, issues as far as petitions or something along those lines. I can't tell you how the board would vote at that time. MR. BOND: I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: However, if you come to us before your time expires and request an extension, given the circumstances, as long as you've been working hard, we're usually pretty good about it. MR. BOND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one. Do you think you'll be close to that time frame? Would one extra month help, or just don't know? It's up in the air? MR. BOND: I just don't know, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe why Mr. Kaufman is asking is because we have the -- we have the opportunity right now to put 90 days instead of 60. MR. BOND: I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that might save another appearance. MR. BOND: That would -- probably would be appropriate. That might save another appearance. And in the event that I was to get done, perhaps I could ask code enforcement to put me on the agenda for the earlier month. Page 42 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you were to come into compliance, it would not be any more appearances. MR. BOND: Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you would be okay. Investigator Baldwin, any issues or -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The 2006 permit basically just needed the final electric, septic, and mechanical. Just about everything else was taken care of. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it's going to be -- it should be pretty easy. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: It should be pretty easy, yes. MR. BOND: Well, there's a half mile of electric line that's got to be brought in. That's the only thing. I don't know how FP&L -- what their time frame is. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I can appreciate that. What's the will of the board? If somebody wants to make -- or have any questions or make a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess the question is, is this mobile home being lived -- is it currently occupied? MR. BOND: Pardon me? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it currently occupied? MR. BOND: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement, as stated, 60 days. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 43 March 22, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. So we did accept it just as it is for 60 days. If you're running into a time crunch, FPL's not able to get out there fast enough, try to get back to us before it expires; we'll see if we can't get you an extension. MR. BOND: Very fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you, sir. Next case is Wilson Plaza. That would be Case No. 4, not case No. 9, as Colleen read during the original amendments. MS. CRAWLEY: Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. But it is Case No. 4 from your original packets. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) INVESTIGATOR 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 submitting the following documents: Two completed copies of the annual monitoring report; one of three traffic county options; and one executed affidavit for the years of 2010 and 2011 within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of$150 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 Page 44 March 22, 2012 compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Patrick. Next is going to be Nian Financing Corporation. That would be Case No. 10 -- I'm sorry -- Case No. 11 from your packet. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it Nine or Nian? MR. BROWN: Nian. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I apologize. MR. BROWN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, could you state your name. MR. BROWN: Antonio Brown. Page 45 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Sure. For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: A quick question. On No. 2 under the Statement of Violation, it says that the permit for the home on the property was stalled. Does that mean expired? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The -- it was expired at the beginning of the case. When Mr. Brown took over, he reapp'ed that permit, okay; however, the -- what I meant by stalled, the inspections were not called in immediately. There was quite a bit of time there. MR. KAUFMAN: The reason I ask, I've never seen that in one of these. So thank you. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I used the verbiage there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Brown, what is your relationship to Page 46 March 22, 2012 the corporation? MR. BROWN: The owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Do you agree to and understand everything that was just read? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: How far along is this house? MR. BROWN: Excuse me? MR. LEFEBVRE: How far along is this house? MR. BROWN: Oh, I think we're 60 days away from finishing the house and all the last inspections. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I mean, is sheetrock in? What is it? MR. BROWN: Right now we went to rough plumbing, rough framing, we're almost done with the floor, rough A/C. So hopefully in the next two weeks we're going to call for another inspection also. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you a builder yourself? MR. BROWN: No, I have a contractor. MR. LEFEBVRE: Contractor. So you feel that -- you feel that in 60 days you should be finished with this? MR. BROWN: Well, I think four months would be great, if I have it, but I'm trying to go for 60 days. That's my goal. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, right now you have a stipulation in front of us for four months. MR. BROWN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: A hundred twenty days. MR. BROWN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we approve the stipulated agreement. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 47 March 22, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it passes unanimously. Thank you, sir. MR. BROWN: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next is going to be Serafin -- I can't even read my own handwriting -- and Menendez. That would be Case No. 10 from your packet. That is Serafin Riveron. I apologize. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, code enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until violation's abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the Page 48 March 22, 2012 provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. My apologies. It's actually 80.86. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it's less than what's on there? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're just going to -- if you want to white it out, and we'll make a change, initial. And then, sir, if you agree to everything still -- it's a little less money on the operational costs. So if you could just initial it when we're done. MR. RIVERON: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, could you state your name again. MR. RIVERON: Serafin. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And do you agree to and understand everything that was just read? MR. RIVERON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 49 March 22, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Great. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Thank you. MR. RIVERON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck, sir. We're just going to have you initial that real quick. MR. RIVERON: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next one is going to be Arce, which is Case No. 1 from your packet. Are the respondents here? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: They're not here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Good morning. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by immediately ceasing to allow amplified sound except during the time specified on the Sol de Mexico's amplified sound permit and pay a first-time violation fine of$100 in accordance with the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Article IV, Section 54-90(A); Three, the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I've got a question. How -- it states in No. 3, the respondent must notify code enforcement. What is there to look at? Is there removal of sound equipment or -- Page 50 March 22, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: At this point, no, not that -- just our standard 3 and 4 on all of our stipulations; I just didn't remove that. But they are in compliance right now unless they allow their amplified sound during times other than is on the amplified sound permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: But in the future we could -- there is a part of the ordinance that states that we could, with the Sheriffs Department, confiscate the equipment if they continue doing what they're doing at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is concerts at the fairgrounds or something? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: No. This is the -- you know where the chickee hut is on 951, where the Sol de Mexico, right there. They have amplified sound permit, and they just were playing music after their 12 a.m. deadline on the permit. MR. KAUFMAN: This sounds very familiar. Was this before us recently, or was it a case similar to this? MR. LEFEBVRE: There was something similar, I believe. This is the first time I actually brought these particular owners in, the restaurant, to the board. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. Tony said it was a different restaurant, I guess. Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Entertain a motion from the board to accept or deny. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 51 March 22, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Just for the record as well, the operational costs and the hundred dollars have been paid. They paid it this morning, so they paid the $180 that was due. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, great. They're already in compliance with most of it then. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. The last one under stipulations is Sokol, Steven Sokol, and that would have been Case No. 3 in your packet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are you Mr. Sokol? MR. HAGAN: No, I'm not. I'm his engineer, Chris Hagan. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, if you'd like to state your name and read it in. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Good morning. For the record, Andrew Kelly, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall; one, pay the operational costs of$82 even incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County permits for excavation and final approval or restoration to original condition within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, alternatively restore the area to original condition; Page 52 March 22, 2012 Four, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request an investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Five, that the respondent shall -- 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: Okay. Again, if you would, just state that you have the authority to speak on the behalf of the owners. MR. HAGAN: My name is Chris Hagan, and the owner has authorized me to represent him on this issue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. And do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MR. HAGAN: We do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: What has to be done? Is there still a hole there or something? MR. HAGAN: There was a minor excavation of earth on the site, and it's been in violation. So the owner has authorized me to proceed and get an excavation permit to dig a proper pond to the county code and, utilizing that material, backfill the over-excavated areas. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you for your explanation. Make a motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 53 March 22, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. HAGAN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you very much. Before we get into hearings, it's 10:17. We'll take a break until 10:30 and be back. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: So now we're going to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. It's like in stereo up here. Okay. Now it's almost too loud. No, it's good, it's good. Okay. I'd like to propose an amendment to the agenda, if I could get a motion for this. We have two respondents in the audience, and I'd like just to be as fair as possible and pull them up. And thank you, Gerald, for the recommendation. If we could get amendment to the agenda, I'd like to pull case number -- and we're moving now into C, hearings. And we'll pull Case No. 15, Sean King Trust, move that up to next on our agenda, and then immediately following that, under old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines, Case No. 2, Gulf Way Condominiums. We'll put that next, and then we'll go back to our agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to change the agenda. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 54 March 22, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it carries. So we're going to move right to hearings, Letter C, hearings, Case No. 15, Sean King Trust. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is violation of ordinance: Vegetation removal, protection, and preservation; vegetation removal/landfill required; Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.01(B). Description of violation: Property was partially cleared of vegetation without a Collier County permit. Location/address where violation exists: 4441 5th Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34119; Folio 36663400008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Sean King Trust, 720 Goodlette Road North, Suite 304, Naples, Florida, 34102. Date violation first observed: March 10, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: June 1, 2011. Date on by/which violation to be corrected: July 1, 2011. Date of reinspection: August 31, 2011. Results of reinspection, non-compliant. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Good morning, for the record -- can you hear me? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Page 55 March 22, 2012 INVESTIGATOR KELLY: For the record, Andrew Kelly, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like now to present case evidence in the following exhibits of two photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion by Mr. Lavinski. MR. MIESZCAK: Did he see them? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, that's a good idea. Have you seen the photos, sir? MR. GARCIA: I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you're okay with them being shown to us? MR. GARCIA: I am, I am. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Seconded by Tony. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Okay. I'd like to -- I observed the violation on March 10, 2011. The property was partially cleared, approximately .0 -- I'm sorry -- 0.8 acres. There were no building Page 56 March 22, 2012 permits issued or a vegetation removal permit issued per the county records. I spoke with a gentleman named Steve from Jazz Development on the same day of 3/10/11 who stated that he was working on behalf of the owner at the time, and I advised him of the violation. He did cease all activities on the property. I posted the notice of violation on this property on June 1, 2011. Steve, with Jazz Development, indicated that they were in the process of getting a building permit. On August 31 of 2011 I checked our records to see if any permits were applied for. None had been applied for at the time through the county. On February 16, 2012, I met with Mr. and Mrs. Garcia. Mrs. Garcia identified herself as the sole beneficiary of the trust. I met them on site. While on site, I discussed the violation. I presented them with all my case information. And they understood the violation. On this past Monday, on March 19, 2012, I spoke with Mr. Garcia and their current architect who advised that they are in the process of completely redesigning the house that they want to put on this piece of property. They also acquired a piece of land contiguous to this property, so they wanted to make some additional changes. The property -- the architect advised that they would probably need about nine months to complete the plans. Also, once the building permit is issued, then the violation would be immediately abated by the issuance of that permit, and that is under Land Development Code 3.05.02(F)(1), which states a building permit has been issued for permitted principal structure. The building permit serves as the clearing permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. How large is the property in its current state? INVESTIGATOR KELLY: The property currently is 2.5 acres. It is an unimproved vacant property. Page 57 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So they're allowed to clear up to an acre, but they have to have a building permit which acts as the vegetation removal permit then? INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything further from the county? INVESTIGATOR KELLY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. King? MR. GARCIA: Good morning. No, I'm -- he's our attorney. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, I'm sorry. MR. GARCIA: I'm the husband. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you just state your name. MR. GARCIA: Dan Garcia. It was our understanding through the excavator that if it was under one acre of clearing, a simple -- is it a vegetation permit -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. GARCIA: -- would be required. The difference, and I guess ultimately what -- in the code, once you introduce mechanical excavation -- we could have went out there and did exactly what we did here now if we did not have mechanical equipment on site. Regardless, as the owners, we're responsible. I don't know if a licensed excavator knew the difference between mechanical or not. What I later learned is that, you know, it's quite an effort time-wise to get the approval for that. So I'm not saying anything. It was excavated. We moved forward with it not knowing we needed the permit. When we then went to see what kind of permit we needed after Andrew had contacted us, that's when we discovered that it's a pretty big permit. It's not a permit just to go in and get the land cleared, that we needed a full building permit. What has happened since then is we've been in talks with two of the owners around the two-and-a-half acres to acquire their property Page 58 March 22, 2012 as well, and that kind of scratches -- you know, we've got to go back to the drawing board in terms of our home design, where on the property it's going to be. We've got title of unity issues, and I think we're kind of back -- where we were 70, 80 percent of the way with our permit drawings that would have abated this violation, we're not even closing on the other adjacent properties for another 30 to 60 days. So we do need quite a bit of time if possible, and that's why our architect and us got on the phone to see if there was any way that we could do something maybe a little further out than six -- 180 days, six months. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So just for clarification, you do intend to build on this property? MR. GARCIA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And you're going to actively pursue a building permit to an eventual structure? MR. GARCIA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Questions? MR. KAUFMAN: So you now -- with the explanation of what needs to be done, you realize that you were in violation or you are in violation? MR. GARCIA: Oh, absolutely, yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Then I make a motion that we find you in violation, and then we'll talk about what you need. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 59 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Now, if you'll bear with us, we're going to get a recommendation from the county, and we can talk about outcomes. MR. GARCIA: Sure. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the -- excuse me. 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; one, must cease all land clearing, excavation, and/or landfill operation and must obtain any and all applicable permits, to include vegetation removal or vegetation removal and landfill permits pursuant to 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) or, two, must submit a restoration plan pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code, Chapters 10.02.06(E)(2) for the -- excuse me -- for the approval by Collier County and restore the property; Three, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the -- 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: I have several questions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. Page 60 March 22, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: First of all, how much land are you acquiring on either side of your property? MR. GARCIA: Two-and-a-half acres to the east and one-and-a-half acres to the north. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So you currently have two-and-a-half acres? MR. GARCIA: Yeah. It would be six-and-a-half acres when all is said and done. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. Can you put the -- because, really, this -- this recommendation is going to need quite a bit of tweaking, because, number two, you wouldn't have a mitigation plan if you're going to be building a house there. MS. BAKER: It's either/or from what the recommendation says. It's one -- MR. GARCIA: And one thing we didn't want to do is we didn't want to go ahead and mitigate and plant things that we knew we would be removing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. GARCIA: So that's kind of left us in the predicament of building permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. The reason I ask how many total acreage you have -- because, hypothetically, when you purchase this it will be a total of six-and-a-half acres. If you only removed one acre, you could then now remove another percentage, whatever -- what's the percentage of-- INVESTIGATOR KELLY: No, you're only under a building permit, and you're only allowed to clear up to one acre -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: -- with a valid building permit. If they build an accessory structure that may need additional clearing, then they can get a vegetation removal permit for that additional structure. Page 61 March 22, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: But if this is considered three separate parcels, could they get -- I guess would it depend on which property they build a house on, or is it all, collectively, one parcel now, and they can only get one acre? MR. GARCIA: It will be one parcel where -- just for tax purposes, we're going to do a title unity. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For land clearing, one building permit gives you one acre. So if they built three houses, they could clear three acres. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: But they would have to be on separate parcels of land. MR. GARCIA: And we'd have three separate building permits. MR. KAUFMAN: And you're not closing on those properties real soon? MR. GARCIA: Thirty to sixty days. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: When do you think you'll be pulling a building permit? MR. GARCIA: We're at -- our architect had said, realistically, it would be nine months; six to nine months. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before you pull a permit? MR. GARCIA: Yeah, before we pull a -- before we pull a permit. You know, could it go a little quicker than that? What I don't want to do is I don't want to -- disingenuous, want to stand there and say, hey, we'll have it done in four months and then have to stand before you again and say, yeah, we're still -- we have a problem with this lot or we have to expand the house. We've gone through three months redesign on the house anyway, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So you may have to incorporate a mitigation plan anyway, because if you have one acre cleared already and you decide to build a house in a different location, you are going to have to mitigate the current -- Page 62 March 22, 2012 MR. GARCIA: Fortunately we're keeping the house -- you're right. Yeah, if we decided once we put these together that we wanted to move the house a half an acre over, yeah, but we're going to keep the house in the same exact location. MR. LEFEBVRE: So -- but a building permit wouldn't then necessarily negate this order? INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Yes, sir. The building permit, by the issuance of a building permit, automatically allows them to clear up to one acre of land. The code does not require them to have a CO or any other -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, but if it's built in a different location, then they still would have to mitigate. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Correct. If they opt to go beyond the one acre of allowance the building permit gives them, then anything beyond that would either have to be authorized or they would have to restore the area. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So you're telling me it could take up to nine months to get -- I just don't understand why it would take that long. MR. GARCIA: First of all, we're 50 percent in town and not -- we've taken three to four months with the first building or the first home. We went from a two-story to a one-story. A lot of it is husband and wife's kind of putting together. One wants one type of house, the other one looks at the numbers and says, maybe value engineering. So what we've got to really do is we've got to sit down and start right at scratch and look to see what we're doing. It may sound like a long time, but I think the fact that I'm going out of town now and coming back next week, and then I'm going to be gone for three months gives me a little less time to deal with the architect. And what we've done with the property now -- and I want to emphasize -- yes, it's a violation. It's something that inevitably we'd be Page 63 March 22, 2012 in the exact same position. We just weren't, as owners, fully informed that to get where we are today was more than a vegetation removal permit, that it was the full-blown house plans. I mean, we have issues with the land, where exactly we're putting the house. We've got to combine these, and I think it's going to take, realistically, six months. Our architect thinks more like nine. That's why I'm asking for a year. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just don't understand why the location of the house is going to dictate the plans of the house. I just don't -- I mean, I don't get it. I mean, with six-and-a-half acres, I don't see you increasing the house size that it's going to encroach on the two-and-a-half acres. So I'm -- I can't agree to the nine months. That just seems like an exorbitant amount of time. I don't know what size house you're building, but -- MR. GARCIA: Well -- and, you know, in all honesty, I'm telling you we're keeping it right there. Once we sit down with the architect, you know, we may very well move it an acre and a half. I don't think we're going to, and I think we've kind of agreed to that, but I can't tell you for sure we haven't. That opens the can of worms of we've applied for the building permit, but what do we do with what we've just cleared? And you're right, we're going to have to go back and mitigate, and we're going to have to go in and probably replant. In order to do that, then we're going to have to hire, I believe, an environmental consultant if we do. So what I don't want to do is I don't want to 100 percent agree that we're going to go lock in on that one area that we cleared just to satisfy a violation when we're building our home. It may be a number of different issues that open up over the next three to four to six months, and I just -- I'm asking for this because I don't want to be standing here in six months and nine months and say, oh, we didn't Page 64 March 22, 2012 quite get where we were. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other issue we have, if we do give you nine months -- which, again, I don't think I can agree to -- we're going to be back in the dry season and on the cusp of being on the dry season. And I would take it you probably don't want to irrigate the land that you're mitigating, so you want to give it the best chance of survival, and that's going to be difficult, too. So we have some time constraints ourselves, too. MR. GARCIA: But I think it's unrealistic -- and, again, we're in this position -- for us to -- you know, I could stand here -- if we were granted 90 days, I just don't realistically see how we could do it because of the mass of the work that we're doing, the amount of work we're doing, and the fact that this is a considerable investment. It's a house, and it's a -- not a small house, and we just -- we need the time. We need the time. MR. MIESZCAK: You know, it seems to me there's so many "if this," "if that," "if that." You're buying property here, you're buying property there. You don't know where you're going. You already moved away with the vegetation without a permit, and I think the board -- I think we should consider what we're here for; property was partially cleared of vegetation without a Collier County permit, and that's what we should be deciding on. I don't want to get into all this other stuff, because I have no clue where he's going to go with this. And if pulling a building permit solves the problem, then maybe that's what should be done. MR. GARCIA: But I -- and we talked about that, and the one thing our architect doesn't want to do -- and I think it's not fair to us, the county, anybody -- is go in with a disingenuous building permit for the sake of trying to satisfy a code violation. We don't want to do that. We're not going to do that. Our architect is -- just, ethically, we're not going to do that. We could go in next week with a building permit and make this Page 65 March 22, 2012 go away, but 100 percent chance we're not going to build that house, and I don't know if that's really the best and fairest way to go. MR. MIESZCAK: What's the problem with pulling a permit? MR. GARCIA: We haven't decided on exactly the house design. MR. MIESZCAK: I'm talking about this partial cleared vegetation without a permit. MR. GARCIA: Well, because we can't pull a permit. The permit is actually the residential building permit to build the structure, the whole house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. MIESZCAK: No. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, I kind of agree with both of the board members. If nothing is done but giving nine months to resolve this, there is no penalty for somebody else to go out and do exactly what you did and then come before the board and say, let's wait until I get all my plans done and it's going to take a year. There's no penalty, and yet we have found you in violation. MR. GARCIA: Sure. MR. KAUFMAN: And, typically, when we find you in violation, we give a reasonable -- we care more about compliance than anything. It's not fines. But compliance on this requires some amount of time that's reasonable to have the property come -- or the violation come into the plans. So it's a reasonable amount of time. I agree with Mr. Lefevbre, 90 days seems to be on the outset. If I'm not mistaken, you start out when you get a building permit with a notice of commencement that's posted on the property; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR KELLY: I honestly don't know. I'm not in building. MR. GARCIA: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: So if you put forward plans that need to be modified in the future, you're building it in the same place, what's to prevent you from getting a building permit in a much shorter time Page 66 March 22, 2012 frame? You're not asking for property to be CO'ed. Just the -- start with a notice of commencement, and then I believe you have to do inspections, at the minimum, one every six months until the project is complete. MR. GARCIA: Well, I guess the reason we're not doing that is because we would knowingly be going and applying for a building permit based upon a design that's going to change. And we could go through six revisions over the next four years, and we wouldn't be any further along. The integrity of the process -- you know, if we do get extended a little time, we're going to go in one time with the design we want, the design we agree to. And what's been done out there is technically -- and, fully agree, it's a violation, and we bear the responsibility as the owner, but it's not something we need to go in and fix in terms of what we did out there was wrong. We did it in the wrong order, and it's going to stay exactly the way it is down the road. The problem is we're just creating a lot of paperwork and administrative and time of the county by going through revision after revision after revision if we do only have 60 to 90 days. MR. KAUFMAN: I think most houses that are built have revisions. It's the rule rather than the exception. Somebody builds a house, and then they change it a little bit. They could even be changing the footprint. MR. GARCIA: Sure. MR. KAUFMAN: So to say that we're not going to do it until everything is absolutely completed, I don't think is fair to being incompliant -- in compliance. MR. GARCIA: Sure, sure. And, again, I just think that we're going to be spending a lot of time at the building department over the course of the next year and a half or so. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can I see the recommendation, please, once again. Does the board have any more comments? I would like to make a motion. Page 67 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I just think that we're probably going to end up settling on around six months, and it's just going to force you to kind of get your architect and you and your wife together to decide on a plan and get an architect who will draw it, submit them to the county in order to pull a permit within six months. It's just going to probably accelerate your process a little bit. MR. GARCIA: And there's a big difference between 90 days and six months. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yep, agreed. MR. GARCIA: You know, so -- and if we do that knowing we've got to make a revision, you know, we could be fine with that. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Can I make a clarification real quick? On the recommendation it talks about a vegetation removal permit or a vegetation removal site fill permit. When I went through and cited code of 3.05 paren -- I'm sorry, 3.05.02(F)(1), the building permit acts as the vegetation clearing permit. I just want to make sure that, you know, there's a clarification that you-all understood that. Also it's -- maybe should have put it more explicit in the recommendations. But the vegetation removal permit acts -- I'm sorry. The building permit acts as that vegetation removal permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks for your explanation. But if you're citing the right section of the code, your explanation here on the record is probably fine enough. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does anyone want to take a stab at it? MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, I guess the question I have is, if they decide to build on a different location than the land that's currently cleared, will they have to mitigation the other land before they can clear the land where the house site is going to be? INVESTIGATOR KELLY: If they pull a building permit and they wind up relocating the building, when they go for their COs or Page 68 March 22, 2012 their inspections and they see they've cleared beyond the acre allowance, they will not be able to get their CO until they're in compliance within the full project site. So they would be required to go back and restore any areas beyond the one acre of allowed clearance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. So -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I have a follow-up? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: However, during the process of submitting for their building permit, if the plans were drawn to use more than one acre and there was justification for it, for instance, a larger home footprint, taking into consideration the adjoining properties as one, there's a chance that the county would allow them to clear more than one acre, correct? INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Yes, sir. There's lots of variables that would allow one acre beyond clearance. MR. KAUFMAN: One quickie. Property itself, is it 660 feet deep? MR. GARCIA: Yeah, 660 by 155, I think. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's two and a half? MR. KAUFMAN: Two and a half CHAIRMAN KELLY: One eighty. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, 180 makes it 2.72 acres, but who's counting? MR. GARCIA: I think 150 to 170. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. So in all likelihood, you can't really move it very far. You have setbacks on either side. If it was a 1.14-acre lot, you'd only have -- you have a much smaller setback. But with a two-and-a-half acre lot, your setbacks on either side are wider. And based on what I saw in the pictures, I don't think you can move it, unless you move it farther back or farther forward on the 660 feet. Page 69 March 22, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: But they're going to acquire -- MR. GARCIA: And we're -- yeah. What we're doing is we're going behind us and to the side, so we can put the house -- and this is where we're still confused and haven't figured out. We can put the house wherever we want. You're right, we've locked in on this one two-and-a-half acre area, but now we can move it 80 feet one way, 300 feet the other way, and we just don't -- we just don't know. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we've beat this horse many times over. MR. GARCIA: I agree. MR. KAUFMAN: And you can have horses on your property, too. But let's -- 180 days from today or $150 will be imposed for each day the violation remains, or the respondent must prepare a mitigation plan which meets the criteria stated in the case. I'm not sure if I want to stick with that 180 days. I'll stay with 180 days or $150 a day will be imposed. MR. MIESZCAK: Mitigation. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The actual planting of the vegetation. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about within 270 days or $150 a day. Again, we're going to be in dry season. That's the only thing that I have that's going to be a problem. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. GARCIA: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 70 March 22, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And it carries. So we've accepted the county's recommendation. You have 30 days to pay the operational costs of$81.15, 180 days to get a permit pulled, a building permit pulled or, if you decide not to pull a building permit, mitigation would require -- actual mitigation report filed within 180 days, and then all the vegetation completely planted within 270 days from today. MR. GARCIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So now we're moving to, under imposition of fine. It's going to be Gulf Way Condominiums. MR. LEFEBVRE: Don't you wish your case was before that one? MR. CAHILL: It's been very interesting. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. This is an imposition of fine, but we're just going to read it real quick into the record, and then we'll decide what we're going to do. MR. CAHILL: Okay, fine. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay. Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to CEB Case No. CESD20100006498, Board of County Commissioners versus Gulf Way Condominiums. Original violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Violation location is at 211 First Street, Naples, Florida; Folio Page 71 March 22, 2012 No. 48270040001. Violation description is a garage that was converted into a living space without obtaining proper Collier County permits. Past order: On September 22, 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, OR4728, Page 885, for more information. A motion to continue was granted on June 23, 2011 . See the attached order of the board, OR4698, Page 1338 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 22, 2012. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between January 22, 2012, and January 26, 2012, totaling six days, for a total of$1,200. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have been paid. Total amount to date, $1,200. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 72 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it's been completely abated. Thank you, Mr. Cahill, for your time. MR. CAHILL: Thank you very much, Board. Good morning. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you, sir. MR. CAHILL: See you, Lionel. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman, can we take -- I know a lot of members have to leave early. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I've got to leave at noon. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have quite a bit still, I think, if I'm not mistaken. Should we move up the vote for chair? CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like. Yeah, if you want to make a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: But, I mean, if some members leave and we have a full board -- it's up to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any issues with that? MS. BAKER: No issues, just with the understanding that the new chair will not start as chair until the next meeting. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Fine with me. You okay, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I'm fine with that. We just can't switch horses in midstream here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just know that quite a few people -- are we going to have a quorum after, like, 12 o'clock? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll still have a quorum. I think the two alternates will then be voting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, no. One of the alternates is leaving. MR. MARINO: I'm leaving at 11 :30. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And actually I'm leaving at 12. Page 73 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're leaving at 12, okay. MR. HUDSON: It would be both alternates. I'm out at 12:30. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We might as well do it now. I've got a full board. Let's go ahead and make a motion to amend. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda and move up the elections, but whatever number it is on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Tony. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now moving on to elections. Do we have a nomination for the position of chairman? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a nomination as Mr. Kaufman as chairman. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Do we have a -- any other nominations for chairman? (No response.) Page 74 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, we'll all make the motion -- we have the motion and a second. All in favor of Mr. Kaufman as chairman, signify by saying aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Now for the position of vice chair, do we have a nomination? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a nomination for Mr. Dean as vice chair. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Dean, do you accept? MR. MIESZCAK: I decline. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Really? MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Do we have any other nominations? Glad I asked. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Really? I've got to pay you back for that dinner you bought me, huh? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other nomination for vice chairman? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to nominate -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to nominate, Lefebvre. The new guy on the block. MR. KAUFMAN: That was who I was going to nominate. MR. MIESZCAK: The new guy on the block. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. Page 75 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it's seconded. Any other nomination for vice chair? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and vote. MR. MARINO: Did he accept? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess I -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're accepting, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You don't have a choice. You have to accept this one. MR. MIESZCAK: You're looking at him? CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, he's -- oh, you're accepting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. MR. MIESZCAK: That's Lefebvre over there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Lefebvre, I apologize. L'Esperance -- MR. MIESZCAK: You got a fever. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You accept, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We'll go ahead and call for a vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 76 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. There, our new board, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice chairman starting next month. Congratulations, guys. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. MR. MIESZCAK: What are you going to do? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, I'm going to be participating again. This is stressful. All right. So now, if I'm not mistaken, going back to normal cases, under standard hearings, Case No. 5 is next, is that correct, and that would be MDG Capital, Lake Trafford, LLC. The respondents are not here. Do we have the investigator to present? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of ordinance: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.13(F). Description of violation: Failed to submit PUD monitoring report for 2011. Location/address where violation exists: Arrowhead PUD, Folio No. 22430003105. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: William L. Klohn, registered agent for MDG, Lake Trafford, LLC, MDG Capital Corporation, 2180 Immokalee Road, Suite 309, Naples, Florida, 34110. Date violation first observed: October 22nd -- I'm sorry. August 22, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 24, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 22, 2011. Date of reinspection: February 22, 2012. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Page 77 March 22, 2012 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence, and these are the copy of the letters that they sent for the annual monitoring reports; one dated March 28th, the other one dated May 31st -- I'm sorry, June 15th. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: On August 22, 2011, I received a complaint: Monitor failed to receive the PUD monitoring report for 2011 . I researched the tracking system, and no PUD monitoring reports were ever received. I attempted to contact the registered agent but was unable to. On August 24, 2011, I posted the property and courthouse and I mailed the notice of violation certified. I have been checking and tracking the system, and all forms have been returned. As of today the violation remains. Page 78 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Was there a second page? Is it required to have any type of service for these type of letters? MR. RODRIGUEZ: There is. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you can certify that there was good service? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find him in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. Do you have a recommendation? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That the board order to pay operational costs in the amount of$82.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by submitting the following documents: Two completed copies of the annual monitoring report, one of three traffic county options, and one executive affidavit within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigators perform a site Page 79 March 22, 2012 inspection to confirm compliance, but if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would someone like to accept the county's suggestion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question for Mr. Lavinski, who is our resident expert on PUD monitoring. How long do you think this should take to resolve? MR. LAVINSKI: I guess I'm concerned. Has anything been done on this, anything submitted on the PUD report, or are they just ignoring it completely? MS. BEARD: Laurie Beard, for the record. Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (Indicating.) MS. BEARD: I did. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Yeah, good. Thank you. MS. BEARD: For the record, Laurie Beard, PUD monitoring. They have not filled in anything this year at all. I've gotten it from the other owners in the property, but nothing from MDG. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. So do we know if it's completed, it's built out, and there are no -- MS. BEARD: No, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: -- missing portions? MS. BEARD: They have -- according to the 2010 report, there were 117 single-family homes out of 436 built, and 332 multifamily homes out of 809, and there are zero square footage of commercial built out of 130,000. So there's quite a bit left to build there. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, that -- they should still be able to pull that together, I would say, in 60 to 90 days. It's -- they know -- and especially where Laurie says she has previous years, that's a good base Page 80 March 22, 2012 for this -- new folks to work from. And where they just haven't responded, I think that probably 90 days -- it sounds like a big project, so I would think 90 days would be a good start. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's the same owner year to year, correct? MDG's owned it the whole time. MS. BEARD: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: They have? MS. BEARD: Yes. It currently owns all of the single-family, which -- the single-family and the commercial, and that's the only two parcels -- the portions left that have not turned in the monitoring report. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it's essentially just copying last years, to an effect? MS. BEARD: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is a local developer that has developed here for years. MS. BEARD: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: He should know the process. So I think 90 days is -- MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I think 90's too much. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- too much, right. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. I change my opinion on that, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would have to go -- make a motion with 60 days and a fine of$100 a day. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 81 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sixty days and $100 a day accepting county's additions. MR. MIESZCAK: Operational costs 82.86? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, included. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. I have the next case as Irma Arrendondo. Okay. Respondent's not here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(2). Description of violation: Dwelling being occupied without water. Location/address violation exists: 1948 45th Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio No. 35749440006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Irma Arrendondo, 1948 45th Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: January 30, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: February 13, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: Immediately. Date of reinspection: March 1, 2012. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I have two items I'd like to present for case evidence. The first Page 82 March 22, 2012 item's going to be a notice of lien on the property from Florida Governmental Utility Authority, which is the operator of the water and wastewater utility system for the Golden Gate City area that this property's located at, and I also have a photograph taken by myself yesterday that kind of proves that the property is occupied. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: This case initiated on January 30th of this year as an anonymous complaint. Complaint was in regards, actually, at the time to the individuals living at the house were constantly running a generator. So I believe it was more -- the complaint was probably initially about the noise, because they were running a generator at all times of the day. I made a site visit to the property, met with an occupant of the house, and he had stated that they were in the process of moving in, and they were working on establishing an account with Florida Power and Light. On February 7th of this year, our customer service staff received a phone call that the water had also been shut off to the property, and Page 83 March 22, 2012 at that time I verified with Florida Governmental Utility Authority that the meter had been removed due to an outstanding bill, so that's why I wanted to show the lien. So on February 8th, I made a site visit to the property and met with the occupant. At that time they did have power, and he stated that they were going to go down to FGUA and work out a payment plan so that they could get the water turned back on. So I was -- seemed like they were trying to do the right thing, so I wanted to work with them a little bit. And he also said at that time that they were kind of just staying there during the day, and at night they were staying with relatives. So I just was trying to work with them a little bit. February 24th, I made a site visit to the property, and water was still not turned on. The guy, again, said he was still working on it, so I would give him another week. March 1st, checked with FGUA, and the water still was shut off, and no one had contacted them about setting up a new account or making a payment plan. So at that point I just wanted to bring the case to a hearing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Mucha, I have a question. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there an irrigation well on this property? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: An irrigation well, I don't believe so. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It appears to me that there's a good possibility that there might be because of the age of the home. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And I just raise a question of the possibility that the irrigation well has been diverted into domestic use, possibly. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Possibly. Page 84 March 22, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I don't know. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: There's a good chance of that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate the violation by providing water to the dwelling with an active valid account with Florida Governmental Utility Authority or vacating the premises until such time that water is provided within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank for each day the violation continues. 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 Page 85 March 22, 2012 Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Are there any children living there? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: You know, I did see some children on one of my visits. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion, fill in the blanks. Pay the operational costs as listed, $500 a day fine, three days. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Three days? Three business days or three days? MR. KAUFMAN: Three days. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Three days. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's going to be hard for noticing them. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I won't have them signed in time for three days. MS. RAWSON: It is -- they won't even get the order in three days. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, what's the soonest we can do it? Because this is certainly a safety and health. And when there's children involved, it's even worse. MS. BAKER: If Jean could get us a copy of the order that's not signed, we can go post it on the property. Once you guys issue a verbal order, it takes effect whether we have a signed copy or not, so MS. RAWSON: Not a problem. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So you're comfortable with three days? MS. RAWSON: Yes, because I'll have it to Colleen tomorrow. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Do we have any further discussion? (No response.) Page 86 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, it carries. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Joe. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a clarification for the reason that I seconded the motion, is you've had multiple contacts with the tenant. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: And maybe this will get the owner's attention. So that's just my reason behind it. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Well, one thing I'm a little curious about is that the tenants have refused to give me any contact information for the owners, so they may be squatters. So that's another reason why I was kind of not sure, you know, what's going on. So I have no way of getting ahold of the owner. I haven't been able to find them, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Very good. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. MR. MARINO: I'm leaving. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is Lonny Moore Trust, Morrison Living Trust. MR. KAUFMAN: Tony's got to leave. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, yeah. Tony's got to leave. And, Ron, are you -- Page 87 March 22, 2012 MR. DOINO: I've got a few minutes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. A couple more cases. All right. That means for a few minutes, while you are still here, you have voting authority because you're our senior alternate. MR. KAUFMAN: Which case are we up to? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of ordinance: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08(C). Description of violation: Presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation including, but not limited to, Brazilian pepper. Location/address where violation exists: 120 7th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 37161440006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Lonny Moore Trust Estate, Morrison Living Trust, 391 9th Street Southwest, Naple, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: December 5, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 24, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 24, 2012. Date of reinspection: February 28, 2012. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Good afternoon. For the record, David Jones, investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present some case evidence regarding this in the form of a picture. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion by Mr. Lavinski. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 88 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Thank you. In the picture you can see there are Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation mainly consisting of Brazilian pepper located on the property. Part of the Land Development Code requires these exotics to be removed in perpetuity. As you can see, that's not being done here. I did make a site visit yesterday. The violation remains. As previously stated, service was given on January 24th, and the violation remains. MR. KAUFMAN: Could I ask a question, or three? The amount of garbage cans sitting there tells me something, number one; number two, I see a driveway going up to a window. That kind of gives me an indication of something else. Has this property been looked at other than the exotics that are right in the front? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Actually, yes. There's another investigator. I believe it's Chris Ambach. He may have had a previous case on this property. As a matter of fact, I know he did. I don't know the details of that case or what it consisted of. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I make a motion we find it in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) Page 89 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR JONES: I do. That the code enforcement board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, must obtain any necessary permits, inspections, and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotics vegetation within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated; Two, the prohibited exotic vegetation base stump must be treated with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide, and a visual tracer dye shall be applied when the prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains within blank days or a fine of blank per day will be imposed; And, finally, No. 3, 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 new property owner. Page 90 March 22, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the owner of the property? INVESTIGATOR JONES: I have not. All -- I just served the property, you know, posted at the property, as well as the courthouse, and mailed it. That's the extent of my contact. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to try to fill in the blanks: 80.57 paid within 30 days. Cristina, do you want to -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah. If I could just add something. The owner is deceased but there's a trust, Morrison Living Trust that the notice was sent to, so that may be another party that, you know -- it's his sister. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know who's living in the property? Is it the sister or -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Right now I don't know who's living at the property, no. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. 80.57 to be paid within 30 days, the problem to be abated within 30 days, and $100-a-day fine thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries, 30 days, $100 a day. Page 91 March 22, 2012 INVESTIGATOR JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case is Tommy Pickren, that would have been Case No. 12. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of ordinance, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). Description of violation: An unpermitted shed with utilities in the rear yard. Location/address where violation exists: 1072 North Alhambra Circle, Naples, Florida, 34103; Folio No. 63401440002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Tommy Pickren, 1072 North Alhambra Circle, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: October 26, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October 26, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 25, 2011. Date of reinspection: February 6, 2012. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Good morning. For the record, Joseph Giannone, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present Case CESD20110014953. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photos dated March 19th. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 92 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: On October 26, 2011, I received a complaint of an unpermitted shed in the rear yard with the utilities located at 1072 North Alhambra Circle. That same day I visited the site and saw the shed with a locked front door with the hose bib on the exterior west side wall, along with a type of venting cap also on the west side wall. At the time of my visit, I found the home to be vacant and the shed to be vacant. On October 26, 2011, I posted a notice of violation at the home and the Collier County Courthouse. I checked the site weekly and this morning and found there to be no change in the violation. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you explain that photo? Looks like a vent? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Yeah. It appears to be some type of a vent that's on the side of the shed. MR. KAUFMAN: Like a dryer vent or something? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Yeah. It kind of leads me to believe there may be an electric hookup, but I didn't see any conduit or any type of evidence of wires. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have, I guess, a question for our attorney. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm in real estate, and yesterday I showed a property in the area, and my customer showed me this property. I did some research on it and found some information about it. The owner has transferred. It's now a bank foreclosure. It's bank owned. Took Page 93 March 22, 2012 final judgment on the 8th of this month. I don't know if my customer's going to make an offer on this property, but I have more knowledge than the board has. But ownership has changed as of-- MS. RAWSON: Well, that's helpful information for the board to know; however, because, you know, all of you are really prohibited from going out and doing your own investigation -- although yours was quite incidental -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- to the board meeting, I would -- how many people -- yeah, I would suggest that you recuse yourself from the vote. But the knowledge about the ownership being transferred, you know, is probably public record. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. That's how I found it out. MS. RAWSON: So I think you should probably recuse yourself from the voting. And I'll give you a piece of paper to fill out. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would do that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Stay with us and continue to participate in the discussion, however, though, right? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question on the pipe that you showed with the shutoff. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Hose bib. MR. MIESZCAK: It's in the "on" position. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. Did you try turning it on? Is there water there, or is it just a piece of PVC? MR. MIESZCAK: It's in the "on" position. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me clarify also. Well, I don't know if it's public records. But on MLS, from a previous listing, it did state that this had a guest -- or not a guest, but a separate apartment on the property. Page 94 March 22, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Could you show some of the other pictures again? MS. RAWSON: If there's a separate structure on the land, I'm sure that probably the investigator, Code Enforcement Board people, probably know that. MR. MIESZCAK: There's another one. MS. RAWSON: Whoop. They're showing you a picture of it right now. MR. LEFEBVRE: That is the -- yeah. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: That's the shed. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, the tank that's on the left-hand side that's blue, that's water treatment. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: That is basically loose. I grabbed that thinking that there may be some type of an attachment. I moved that -- I didn't want to disturb it anymore -- and it was not attached to anything that I saw, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: So it's not like a rocket engine or anything. MS. BAKER: Can I just make a point of clarification with the final judgment certificate of title issue just so we're all on the same page. The final judgment was done in March, and they set a sale date for April 2, 2012. So at this time there is not a new owner. They just have a sale date. So just so we're clear that the owner that we are here for today still does own the property as of now because there is no certificate of title issued. MR. KAUFMAN: Make the motion we find him in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 95 March 22, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: (Abstained.) MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Yes, sir. 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 obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of occupancy, completion within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until this violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation by using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Department -- Collier County's Sheriffs Office to enforce provisions of this order, and costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What were the fees again? MR. MIESZCAK: 81.43, is that right? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: 81.43, yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me try filling in the blanks: $81.43 paid Page 96 March 22, 2012 within 30 days, violation abated within 30 days, $200 a day fine thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: (Abstained.) MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Well done, thank you. I think that concludes all of our new cases. Now moving on to old business, No. 5, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines, Subset 1, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. MR. DOINO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KELLY: You ready to go? MR. DOINO: I'm ready to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chair, also. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we have two more board members going. We still have a quorum. Chris, you'll be voting on everything. And thanks, guys. See you next month. (Mr. Doino and Mr. L'Esperance left the boardroom.) Page 97 March 22, 2012 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Are we ready? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay. Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regard to CEB Case No. CESD20110013221, Board of County Commissioners versus Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Company. Original violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Violation location is 4540 7th Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 36661360001. Violation description is a 26-foot by 30-foot two-story addition on the side of the residence and an 18-foot by 56-foot screen porch on the rear of the residence. Both additions were constructed without Collier County permits. Past order: On January 19, 2012, 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, OR4760, Page 630, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 22, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between February 19, 2012, and March 22, 2012, totaling 33 days, for the total amount of$6,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date $6,681.15. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) Page 98 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thank you. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next case is Delzotto. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CEAU20110007440. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and Florida Building Code 2007 Edition Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Location: 2921 2nd Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 40927600006. Description: Metal shed, garage conversion, and fence all built without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On November 18, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4760, Page 558, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 22, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as following: Order Page 99 March 22, 2012 Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between December 19, 2011, and March 22, 2012) 95 days, for a total of $14,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $14,331.43. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Cristina. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: CHAIRMAN KELLY: Villarrealy? Close? It carries unanimously. Thank you, Board. Next case is Virginia Villarreal -- (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. CEB Case No. CESD20110002682, Board of County Commissioners versus Virginia Villarreal. The violation is Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location address is 1314 Tangerine Street, Immokalee, Page 100 March 22, 2012 Florida. Folio is 3073280001. The description is two sheds erected in the rear of the property without first obtaining Collier County building permit. Past orders: On October 12, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4734 and Page 2813 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 22, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between January 26, 2012, and March 22, 2012, 57 days, for a total of $11,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order No. 5, operational costs of $80 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $11,480. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Okay. And the next one is going to be Juan Cervantez and Page 101 March 22, 2012 Marion Hernandez. SUPERVISOR SNOW: That was good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is concerning CEB Case No. CESD20110002352, Board of County Commissioners versus Juan Cervantez and Marion Hernandez. The violation is Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 2615 Dimar Lane, Immokalee, Florida. The folio is 60380320000. The description: An addition and carport attached to the mobile home, also a roof over the mobile home all erected without first obtaining Collier County building permit. Past orders: On October 27, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, a 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, OR4734, Page 2801, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 22, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Item No. 1 and No. 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period of between January 26, 2012 and March 22, 2012, 57 days, for a total of $11,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order No. 5, operational costs of $80.29 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $11,480.29. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? All in favor? Page 102 March 22, 2012 MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. And our last case under imposition of fines, AMG Properties. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Before I read the order, just to refresh the board's memory, this was a case that was in the industrial park. They had done additions to the property, massive additions. I would say they added 2,500 square feet to the building. They needed an SIP. They came back before the board and requested more time. The board denied that; however, they requested that they continue working for the SIP, and they continued to do that. The SIP was recently approved as of October of last year, and they have done nothing since then. Now they need to get building permits. So that's why the length of time that when -- when I read this amount -- I just wanted to give you an explanation before I did that. Board of County Commissioners -- THE COURT REPORTER: Hold on. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I'm sorry. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: I do so swear what I gave and what I will give is accurate. Board of County Commissioners versus AMG Properties, Incorporated. It's CEB Case No. 2007090454. Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Page 103 March 22, 2012 The location is 3831 Arnold Avenue, Naples, Florida. The folio number is 00278360006. Description is construction/additions /remodeling done without proper permits. Past orders: On June 26, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4 -- excuse me -- 4376, Pages 0285, for more information. An extension of time was denied to October 2nd -- October 20, 2008, for the attached order of the board; OR4410, Page 3229, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board as of March 22, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Item No. 1 and No. 4, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between October 25, 2008, and March 22, 20121 1,242 days, for a total of $248,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order No. 7, operational costs in the amount of $502.49 have been paid. Total fines to date are $248,400. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with these folks lately? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I did until recently. They would always tell me they're working forward. They're progressing. It took them a very long time to do an SIP. And you all know how the process works. Once you do an SIP, they get rejections. They had approximately six months to do the -- to respond. And they would wait until the ninth hour before they would respond, then they'd get another six months. So if -- that's why it took the SIP to go -- to progress so long. And it was just -- it was in October it was -- it was finalized. Now they have to do their -- they have to do a construction meeting with Page 104 March 22, 2012 the county to get their permits, and I haven't heard a word from them since then. MR. KAUFMAN: Big fine. But they're not in compliance, so I make a motion we impose. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you, Board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. That concludes all of our cases today except we have one more, motion to amend a previously issued order for McKinney. MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. This case was brought to you, I believe it was last month, and we found the board imposed only the operational costs and abated all the fines. The operational costs had been paid prior to the hearing. So we would just ask that the order be amended that the operational costs are not imposed as a lien and that all fines were abated. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would someone like to make a motion for Case CES20110001989, McKinney? MR. MIESZCAK: So moved as read. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. Page 105 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it's taken care of for you. Now, any -- the new business has been moved to next month. Any old business? I'm sorry, consent agenda has already been forwarded. Awful lot of cases going to the county's attorney's office this week, but we haven't had any in months, so I assume that's why. Any reports? MS. BAKER: Just to give you an update on the foreclosure numbers, for the week ending March 18, 2012, the abatement costs paid by lenders was $2,746,669. The total violations abated by lenders is $2,221. The current number of open foreclosure cases we have is 73. And that week's total savings to Collier County was $7,462, and nine violations were abated by lenders. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Beautiful. Excellent. Any other reports? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Comments? I want to say congratulations to our chairman, Mr. Kaufman, and our vice chairman, Mr. Lefebvre. MR. MIESZCAK: I was going to say the same thing to our new board member, Mr. Lefebvre, vice chair, and it was very nice, and Mr. Kaufman. Page 106 March 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: He moves up the ranks quickly. MR. MIESZCAK: Congratulations. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a request before next month, and that is the latest version for our workshop on the articles, I don't know that I have the latest version. I don't know if anybody has the latest version. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You emailed it in the last minute approval. MS. BAKER: We emailed it. That's the latest version is what we emailed you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There were two attachments. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, I didn't see the second one. Okay. That was one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: He needs it resent. MR. KAUFMAN: No, if it's there, it's there, and I don't delete them. The other thing is, it seems that one of the suggestions that I'm going to have at the next workshop is that we do something so it's easier for us to find the different cases as we go through it instead of fumbling back and forth on a book. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Tablet. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, that was going to be nice. MR. MIESZCAK: I think that was -- we were going to bring that up at the workshop. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. But one of the things I would request, if it's possible, the next time we send out the cases, I wonder if we can get the separators, you know, with the little tabs on them with numbers so that we all have the same thing. MS. BAKER: You want us to put binders together; is that what you're asking? MR. KAUFMAN: No, no, no, no, no, no, just the separators. I know the county can't afford the binders or an iPad, but maybe the Page 107 March 22, 2012 dividers so that if I picked up Gerald's book or Ken's book, we're all -- have the same sort of plan for seeing what comes next. MR. MIESZCAK: Can we talk about this at the workshop next meeting? I think -- because I've got some suggestions I'd like to bring up, but I don't want to do it now. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Are we going to have the workshop before the meeting or after the meeting? MS. BAKER: At the end of the meeting. MR. MIESZCAK: Are we going to have lunch and all that? Bring your own lunch, folks. MR. LEFEB VRE: Motion to adjourn. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next meeting's April 26th. We have a motion and a second, however you want to work it. All in favor? MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we're out of here. Thank you. ff- Mi March 22, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:50 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KEN LY, Chairman These m utes approved by the Board on Aorl'i a s presented or as corrected Page 109 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY ❑ CITY UNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICFJ VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: I ❑ ELECTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * * * * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) r� �nnr,e o PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST hereby disclose that on c-� l c' 20 / 2: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) ,,--,'inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed 4Snatugre by which NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2