Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/26/2012 R April 26, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, April 26, 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: Robert Kaufman Kenneth Kelly Larry Mieszcak Ron Doino Chris Hudson (Alternate) James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. And I notice this morning that somebody left a gavel here for me this morning. I have never seen one here in the last four, five years. Notice: That the respondents 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 chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal the decision of the 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, evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing that record. Which brings us to roll call. MS. BAKER: Mr. Howard Kaufman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly. MR. KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino is absent. Mr. Chris Hudson. MR. HUDSON: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak. MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. Page 2 April 26, 2012 MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski. MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ronald Doino, Jr. MR. DOINO: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This morning, since we have one member who is not here, Ron will be a voting member of the proceedings today. Okay, we're moving on to the agenda. Do we have any changes? MS. BAKER: We do. Under number 4, public hearings, motions, letter A, motions, motion for continuance, we have one addition. This will be Dominick Cammuso, CENA2012000965. This was number 15 previously -- previously number 15 under hearings. Under motion for extension of time, we have four additions. The first will be John C. Boyer and Betty Jane Savard-Boyer, Case CESD2011-0002585. The next will be John and Denise T. C. Brimmer, Case 2007090878. Next will be Kirsten Martucci, Case CELU20110006574. And the last will be Kirsten Martucci, Case CESD20110008406. Under stipulations, we have two stipulations. The first stipulation is Judy S. and Silas Pacheco, Case CESD20110007349. This was number five under hearings. And the second is Barry W. Barnett, Jr. and Michelle A. Barnett, Case CESD20110014881. And this was number 13 from hearings. Under letter C, hearings, number two, case CELU20110011262, Gracelyn Mostaccio Rue has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CESD20100007042, Kirk Sanders has been withdrawn. Number 9, Case CESD20110014134, Maria Ortiz Garcia has been withdrawn. Number 14, case CEROW20120000960, Dominick Cammuso has been withdrawn. Page 3 April 26, 2012 And under number five, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, number two, Case CES20110006426, Carlisle/Wilson Plaza, LLC has been withdrawn. Number 9, Case CESD20100009135, Opera Naples, Inc. has been withdrawn. And number 10, Case CEPM20110003139, Nicholas and Catherine Gonzalez has been withdrawn. That's all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Okay, now we have the minutes. We need a motion to approve the minutes, unless there are any discussions, changes, abstentions. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? Page 4 April 26, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries. Okay, that brings us down to motions for continuance. And I'll leave that up to you to call. MS. BAKER: The first will be Dominick Cammuso, Case CENA20120000965. (Speakers duly sworn). INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the respondent here today? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: We have been in contact with the lawyer. He's not here today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Jen, what tab is this under for me? MR. LEFEBVRE: There's a letter from the attorney dated the 16th of April. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: None of us will find it. MR. LAVINSKI: It's number 14. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I have it. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: It's 14 and 15. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question on this one, and that was how the notice was performed. Was this a registered letter Page 5 April 26, 2012 that was sent out or -- MS. BAKER: Yeah, certified mail was sent out on April 16th and the property and courthouse were both posted as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It appears that -- why don't you present and we'll go from there. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: You want me to just read the letter or go off-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the letter is asking for a -- it says that he's disabled, unable to attend. That's this one. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: I know they have a new lawyer. He had a lawyer before and he switched over to a new lawyer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: McDonald? Okay, why don't you read the letter and go from there. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: It says: Please allow this letter to serve as my request to continue the hearing currently scheduled for April 26th, 2012 in the above stated cases beginning at 8:30 for the investigator's meeting and 9:00 for the hearings. I have a conflict with my calendar for April 26th and respectfully request my scheduling assistant contact your scheduling department to reset it. In addition, with regard to the SIP, Site Improvement Plan, Mr. Cammuso has been advised by the fire department that he should be able to get the building permit so he can bury the concrete. MS. BAKER: We just got confirmation that we have a signed stipulation for this case. We just have to get it. It's been e-mailed to us. So we need to get copies of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to hold this off till -- MS. BAKER: So can we just, yeah, move this. Hopefully we should have that stuff by the time we get to the stipulation section. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that there's less confusion, for me anyhow, this was under Tab 17. Is that the number that's still there? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: The case was under 15. Page 6 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand that. I'm trying out a new system so we don't have to go through all the different pages. That would be on the first page of-- MS. BAKER: It was under number 17, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those are the numbers that I'm going to be looking for so I don't have to hunt around for them. Okay, so we'll save that to stipulations. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next case? MS. BAKER: The next will be under motion for extension of time, Thomas P. Smith, Case CESD20110003049. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's under my tab one. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SMITH: Yeah, I just need to see if I can get an extension on this. I have the permit for the fence. I obtained that earlier this week. I have a partial permit for the structure in the back, a Ted's shed. I can get an engineered drawing from the gentleman. The business has been changed to Amazon.sheds.com up in Bonita. He requires a $50 fee for a copy of the engineering permit, you know, so I can give it to the county. I think that's a little extreme but I can't argue with the man, it's his business. He has all the blueprints for all the Ted's sheds that were ever built in this area. And I can't get it from the county. Then I have a -- from Reggie Smith, I have a certificate here where the permit was reissued for the C.O., the final C.O. on the 18-year-old modification to my garage into a playroom. And all that paperwork has been re-filed and they're trying to get all that in order. The gentleman that did the construction is out of town for a few days. As soon as he gets back in, he'll be following up with this. So of the three violations there I am working on trying to get these. I'm also in a short sale on the property. If the short sale goes Page 7 April 26, 2012 through, I still will be able to stay there. But that's up in the air right now. We did move back into the property per Diane Flagg's recommendation. We were working with the bank on it. That was in December. I spent quite a bit of money getting back into the house, couple thousand dollars to get the well system back up and a hot water heater replaced. And we just need some more time to get the rest of these things in order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time do you need? MR. SMITH: I'm asking for a six-month extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does the county have any comments on it? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Just let me add that he's been very cooperative and he's working with contractor licensing, and they found the actual original contractor that was for the garage conversion. There was a permit pulled back in '96, '97. And they found that contractor and they're actually working with the contractor trying to get that garage conversion permitted. So I think -- we have no objection to an extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to extend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to extend six months. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those -- any discussion on it? MR. KELLY: Just a quick question. Now that we have an order, if someone was to buy the home, would they know about this order? Would it be disclosed? MS. FLAGG: The order is in Clerk of Courts record, because it's recorded. And if they do a lien search they'll definitely know about it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Page 8 April 26, 2012 Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries. MS. BAKER: Next case will be you Urbano Hernandez and Manuel Hernandez. Case CESD20110001255. (All speakers sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. I suppose it would adequate if I spoke for the respondent. He is working today. He felt that he couldn't take off. He's trying to get all his finances in order so he can finish doing what he was doing. If you remember, this had to do with a carport and a large steel structure that was added to the mobile home. He's demolitioned part of the -- he got a demolition permit. He's removed part of the carport. He's in the process of getting engineered drawing so he can keep part of the carport and the steel structure. He does have one -- he does have a permit that he is applying for that hasn't been issued yet. I think he's made progress. I know he's requesting 60 days and I know you already granted an extension for 60 days, but he is trying to come into compliance and he is diligent in doing what he needs to do. Page 9 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think -- knowing your ways in and out of our building area, do you think 90 days would be sufficient? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I was thinking maybe more of 120. He has been diligent and he has requested extensions from you all before, so we're keeping in active contact with him. I would say he calls Maria Rodriguez, who is the investigator of the case, at least once a week to let her know what's going on. So it's not like he hasn't -- he's not trying. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion for 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. KELLY: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 120 days. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I thank the Board. MS. BAKER: Next case is Joyce Holland, Case CELU20080009976. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. HOLLAND: Good morning. Page 10 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see that you're requesting 30 days. MS. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you give us a little -- MS. HOLLAND: I originally had requested 60 days back in January for my SIP to be completed. It was completed in time by March 20th, but for some reason or another, the fire department couldn't decide who was going to be taking care of our business and so fire had not signed off. And I understand fire has signed off now by April 6th. So I requested 30 more days extension to take care of the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question. Has the $79.72 been paid? MS. BAKER: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you think 30 days will be sufficient? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Well, she's in compliance now. It's abated. So -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, well, if we grant the 30 days, this just doesn't come back. Okay. So motion? MR. KELLY: So moved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. We have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 11 April 26, 2012 MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. HOLLAND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is Janet Sneeden, Case CESD20110009351. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. SNEEDEN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have your letter. Maybe you can tell us a little bit about the situation. MS. SNEEDEN: Huh? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand what I'm saying? MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you tell us how long of an extension that you need and the reason for the extension? MS. SNEEDEN: Six months? Six months. Erik? (Mr. Hester was duly sworn.) MR. HESTER: All right, here's the deal. We're tearing down the house. We're tearing it down slowly. We started on the back porch. It had enough stuff to put a U-haul in to strain of tools and screws and stuff. And it had to go somewhere. Can't take the roof down, because if I take the roof off the porch, then that means the living room is ruined. So eventually I'll get to it. And I'm working on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I believe this case was heard in November, if I'm not mistaken? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yeah, that is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And at that time -- I'm trying to see how much time was granted at that time. This was due to be 90 days, Page 12 April 26, 2012 at which we are probably at that point right now, or past that. Why don't you give us an update from the county's perspective. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Well, since the last hearing they have made some efforts in tearing down the back portion of the structure. I have a picture here I'd like to put in as evidence. MR. MIESZCAK: Have they seen the picture? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have they seen the picture? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the picture. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion. Second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. BAKER: Jean? Just a legal question. Can we present evidence for an extension of time hearing? MS. RAWSON: Not really, because this is not anything other than their request for you to extend the time. And so it's really their burden to convince you that the time should be extended. If the county opposes it, of course they can say that you oppose it. But we don't usually have like a full-blown hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And this is written up as an imposition of fines. MS. RAWSON: It is, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I find it -- I don't know how you put the imposition of fines in the request for an extension or a Page 13 April 26, 2012 continuance. MS. BAKER: Well, it was originally scheduled for imposition of fines. After we had scheduled it they had asked for an extension. If it's denied, we're still going to go ahead with the imposition of fines. MS. RAWSON: Correct. At which time then you would get that evidence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we'll hold off on that until we see what we're doing with the extension of time. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Okay. It was just more to show that they are making an effort. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have they pulled a demo permit? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: There has not been -- no permits have been pulled. MR. HESTER: I was told I didn't need it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: By whom? MR. HESTER: They told me I didn't need a permit. I asked. Well back up. Thirteen years ago when I bought the place, it was like it is. And there was -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think you need to save that if we're going to hear the case during the imposition of fines. Right now we have to decide whether we can grant additional time for your case or not. Based on that, it either goes to the imposition of fines at that point. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to deny. MR. KELLY: Hang on. Mr. Chair, you already had a motion and a second that was never voted on. I think that needs to be withdrawn before Gerald's motion can be made. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that was for the documentation. You want to withdraw that? MR. LEFEBVRE: I didn't make the motion. MR. KELLY: Someone else made the motion. Page 14 April 26, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: That was the one that was seconded by Mr. Lavinski? MR. KELLY: I think it might be. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Mieszcak. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll withdraw. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll withdraw the second. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny, based on the fact that he hasn't applied for a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KELLY: I'll second it. MR. HESTER: Excuse me, what's going on? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on, wait. We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, all those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have turned down your motion for an extension of time. This case will come back later in the agenda under imposition of fines and we can discuss the work you've done, pictures showing work you've done, et cetera, at that time. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, if we could just do that now, amend the agenda and take that case now, please? Page 15 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, fine. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to amend the agenda, take that case now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which brings us back to a motion to accept the picture that you have. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make that motion to accept the photo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Page 16 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That carries. MS. BAKER: We'll go ahead and read the recommendation first, and then we'll put the picture up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: This is dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 540 Plat Road, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00111280007. Modifications to the main structure without first obtaining Collier County building permits. On November 18th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744, Page 1134 for more information. An extension of time was granted on February 23rd, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4772, Page 1299 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board's orders as of April 26th, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order items number one and two, fines at a rate of$200 per day for the period between March 25th, 2012 through April 26th, 2012, 33 days, for the total of$6,600 -- MR. HESTER: They're stealing our property. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$80.86 have been paid. Page 17 April 26, 2012 Total amount to date $6,600. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, can you describe in the picture that we have on the visualizer the work that's been done? MR. HESTER: That's the back of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HESTER: There was a wall there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The wall was up in the front? MR. HESTER: No, this is the rear of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a microphone? MR. HESTER: There was a wall here, okay. It's not there anymore. And this board, and this board and this board, is the only thing holding that roof from coming down. This section here is the trailer, okay? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. HESTER: And this is the back porch. The man that I bought the house from built it. So I would appreciate if you all keep that in mind. I bought the house as it is. And I did a title search. I paid big money for this company to do this and now they're denying doing it. So here's a door. That's the air conditioner. This door's going to replace that door because that door is aluminum. I had to put the hot water heater inside the house somehow. But like I said, when I take this roof here off, because of the way the guy did it, he drove nails and stuff through the roof of the trailer. You just can't take the one roof off and expect everything to be okay. I'm on medication, understand that one? I don't walk without it. I try not to take any. I look at the neighborhood around me everybody's on my medication and they're acting crazy and stealing from people. So I'm really, really careful in what I do with my meds. In fact, I'm working my way out of not taking any of them, which is going to leave me to where I'm back to a wheelchair or something. So I take pills to work on the house and I take them so I can Page 18 April 26, 2012 come here and deal with you guys. Other than that, I don't like to take them. I got a nice thing on my brain here, I got another one on my liver, and that's from taking these pills. And the doctor gave me two months. So if I get upset, the cancer grows real fast. And I'm trying to do this. We don't have no money. My neighbor next door has caused all these problems. He helped the guy build this. There was permits pulled. I don't know what happened. But my neighbor has a way with someone named Tony. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now -- MR. HESTER: And now I come home to find that I got to get rid of my house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long do you think it's going to take before you would become into compliance? MR. HESTER: Compliance as it being torn down? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whatever the original order was. MR. HESTER: Well, they wanted me to get another home, and the cheapest junkiest one I can get is 20 grand. Because it has to be a '96 or newer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So are you saying that -- MR. HESTER: There's no way we can do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you saying that no matter what you do you can't bring this into compliance? MR. HESTER: Oh, I can fix this. But it's not like I'm 25 years old and I have lots of energy. I'm more like you. And you don't want to go and do this stuff every day either, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think I'm capable of it, but -- MR. HESTER: This here work took me every day a couple hours, you know, and it's seriously put together. Because after I bought it, I modified the structure to where it wouldn't come apart in a hurricane. So for what a normal house would have a strap, I've got four. And when I rebuilt the trusses when the tree came down on the house, Page 19 April 26, 2012 I found it insufficient to my standards. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But my question to you is -- MR. HESTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- can you fix this so that it comes into compliance? MR. HESTER: Yes, I can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if you can, how long do you think it would take? Because that's what the board is going to weigh if this is a possibility or not. MR. HESTER: I'd say the least it would take is six months. I have a lot of materials. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. MIESZCAK: I have a question, if I may ask. Can you put that picture back, where he pointed to two posts that's holding up the roof. Those two end posts down there are holding up the roof, right? You said that those -- MR. HESTER: There's one, two, three, four. MR. MIESZCAK: You said the two there in the middle were holding up the roof. But all four of them are holding up that roof? MR. HESTER: Yeah, there's four of them there. And then this here -- this right here is the closet. MR. MIESZCAK: No, but I'm asking, you think that's safe right there? I think it's a safety issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like a two-by-four. MR. HESTER: There's a beam that runs this whole thing all across -- MR. MIESZCAK: Right, but look what's holding it up. It looks like a two-by-four, is what I'm saying. There's not much support for a big roof. MR. HESTER: Well, there's a reason it looks like that. I'm tearing it down. Page 20 April 26, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: So if you pull out the posts does the roof come down too? MR. HESTER: I can't pull the posts out until I peel the roof off. Because, if I pull the posts out it causes more damage. Now, it's got hurricane straps running through them. So if a wind came, it ain't lifting it off. But the plywood, the windows and the doors that were there are gone. So basically all this held up that anyways. The plywood's kind of like cosmetics. But in a couple of weeks from now I could have that roof down. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I ask a question? How many people live in this home? MR. HESTER: Janet and I. We have shared it with many other people. There has been several families that have lived there. They needed a place. MR. LEFEBVRE: Question I have. In November when you came in front of us, you had an opportunity to do one of two things: You had an opportunity to either get the addition permitted or do a demo. And before -- don't cut me off. You would either had to apply for permits and get all the inspections and go that route to get it permitted and get a certificate of occupancy. MR. HESTER: I tried all that. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other option would be to demo. To demo you need a permit. And you haven't received a permit. So I guess that's one of the issues I have, is right now you're not following the proper procedure so that the county knows that it's been demoed correctly, because there's been no inspections or anything. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: May I? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Supervisor Cristina Perez. There was a previous last month when this had come to hearing, and we had presented a letter from the building official declaring the Page 21 April 26, 2012 building a dangerous building because of some of these supporting factors of these additions. We do have that letter, if you wish to review it again. MR. LEFEBVRE: You have to be sworn in. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I was sworn in when we initiated. So we do have that letter from the building official and he does point out four sections of the dangerous building code that he found to be in dangerous violation at this location. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's the county's recommendation that this be denied and the county will, I guess, dispose of that if you can't. MR. LEFEBVRE: The problem I have is hurricane season's coming, and if anything it's more compromised without the wall than it is -- it's more compromised in the state it is now than it was before when there was a wall up, which would have supported this roof much better. And as we know, winds will just lift that roof right off and now you have airborne debris and everything. So going six months will basically take us through the hurricane season. And I just don't see that that will be the route that I would want to take. MR. HESTER: I think you misunderstand. It's not going to take me six months to tear that part of the roof off. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're asking for a six-month extension. So literally, if we give you a six-month extension it could take six months. You could come in to us on the 179th day and say I finished and we would be well into the hurricane season. MR. HESTER: Well, this back roof is not -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop this a second. The extension of time was denied. Was denied. This is for the imposition of fines. So either we impose the fines or we don't. And based on what the county has provided and your testimony, does anybody want to make a motion? April 26, 2012 building a dangerous building because of some of these supporting factors of these additions. We do have that letter, if you wish to review it again. MR. LEFEBVRE: You have to be sworn in. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I was sworn in when we initiated. So we do have that letter from the building official and he does point out four sections of the dangerous building code that he found to be in dangerous violation at this location. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's the county's recommendation that this be denied and the county will, I guess, dispose of that if you can't. MR. LEFEBVRE: The problem I have is hurricane season's coming, and if anything it's more compromised without the wall than it is -- it's more compromised in the state it is now than it was before when there was a wall up, which would have supported this roof much better. And as we know, winds will just lift that roof right off and now you have airborne debris and everything. So going six months will basically take us through the hurricane season. And I just don't see that that will be the route that I would want to take. MR. HESTER: I think you misunderstand. It's not going to take me six months to tear that part of the roof off. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're asking for a six-month extension. So literally, if we give you a six-month extension it could take six months. You could come in to us on the 179th day and say I finished and we would be well into the hurricane season. MR. HESTER: Well, this back roof is not -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop this a second. The extension of time was denied. Was denied. This is for the imposition of fines. So either we impose the fines or we don't. And based on what the county has provided and your testimony, does anybody want to make a motion? Page 22 April 26, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose, do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. MIESZCAK: My main reason is I'm worried about the safety of that property right there. That could fall down on somebody. MR. HESTER: Sir. MR. MIESZCAK: Excuse me. And they've had other people in there staying with them. So if you bring another 10 people in there I can see it could be a real problem. And there it sits and here we've been six months after the fact and it's still there. So that's why I made that motion. MR. HESTER: The reason it's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on, we have a motion on the floor. Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so the fines will be imposed and -- Page 23 April 26, 2012 MR. HESTER: This is not working with me. This is me losing my house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the imposition of the fines. You can appeal that -- MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. FLAGG: If I may offer, once anyone comes into compliance after the fines are imposed, what then happens is we go to the BCC on their behalf, as long as they have worked diligently towards compliance, and we recommend to the BCC that the fines are waived. So this is not the end of the road, this is one step. The next step in the priority is to seek compliance. Once compliance is achieved, if they've been diligent in pursuing it then we ask the board on their behalf to waive the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do you understand what Ms. Flagg has said? This is not the end. If you continue working on it and you bring it into compliance, the code enforcement division will go on your behalf to the County Commissioners to resolve the situation. Okay? MR. L'ESPERANCE: And to take away the fines if you come into compliance. Understand that? MR. HESTER: Kind of. MR. L'ESPERANCE: They will take away the fines if you come into compliance. MR. HESTER: When? MR. L'ESPERANCE: If you come into compliance. MR. HESTER: Are you saying at the end of the day? I want to know exactly what you're saying. If I have to go home to set a match to my house today to stop the fines, is that what you're saying? Do I have to burn my house down? MR. MIESZCAK: Speak into the microphone so I can hear. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Speak into the microphone, please. Page 24 April 26, 2012 MR. HESTER: Are you giving me the option of the end of the day or what? Explain more detail, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not the end of the day. MR. HESTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It takes a while, I'll tell you, to do anything. MR. HESTER: Okay. It took me a while to tear that part off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. But it takes -- thank you. Ms. Sneeden, we have ruled that the imposition of the fines will occur. Ms. Flagg has described to you the process that needs to take place for that to be changed. So this case is concluded. MS. SNEEDEN: What's conclude mean? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? Thank you. MS. SNEEDEN: Thank you. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, the supervisor will go out with Ms. Sneeden and review everything that we've discussed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Great. MS. BAKER: The next case, we're back to motion for extension of time, will be John C. Boyer and Betty Jane Savard-Boyer, Case CESD20110002585. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see you are requesting, it appears a 90-day extension -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to complete the work? Do you want to give us a little -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Background? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: When we were here in November, I Page 25 April 26, 2012 thought you were very generous in giving us six months to do what had to be done. The renter that was in the building at the time moved out like within a week. So it's been vacant. In the last six months we've had some health problems in the family. My sister-in-law was in hospice and has since died. Anyhow, we didn't get together with Ralph until March 14th, I believe it was, and tried to see what had to be done to retain this as a rental unit. We found out that we can't afford to continue it as a rental unit because it came into impact fees and all sorts of problems. And we discussed this with a few of the people at planning and whatever. The best thing we can do right now is try and use it as storage. We have furniture from family members. And instead of paying storage fees of 100 plus, we have allowed them to put their furniture in this building. However, we still need a convenience permit to do the AC and plumbing or something. We were told we had to remove everything out of the kitchen, the refrigerator, the stove, whatever. Fortunately they're leaving the bathroom there. We just have a big family and we have a lot of things on our plate and we just couldn't get it done. We hope to get it done by May 15th, but if we don't, you know, God knows we don't need a $100 a day fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you think 90 days would be sufficient time to -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: At least, sure. I mean, at the maximum. I'm hoping to have it done, with Ralph helping us, within the next, you know, 30 days. But I don't want -- you never know today who's going to be at work and who isn't going to be at work. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Ralph, do you have any comments? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No. She's been in contact with me. She's been diligent in regards to that. I've been trying to get ahold of her contractor. She does have a contractor. I have his number. I have Page 26 April 26, 2012 his name. So we've been working together on getting this done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you would support the 90-day extension? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you feel 90 days is sufficient? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: I think so. I think it's at least sufficient. I'm helping her also, so we'll get this moved along -- MR. MIESZCAK: Also, permits were pulled, correct? You have permits, right? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, she doesn't yet. It has to be pulled by a contractor because it's a rental unit. She can't do it by herself, so a contractor has to come in. I think that's where she's having a little problem, trying to get -- MR. MIESZCAK: That's part of my question. If you give an extension and you don't have a permit even applied for, what are we extending? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: But it isn't a rental anymore, it's like a garage, it's like a storage building. And it will not go back to being a rental because we cannot afford a four or $5,000 impact fee to do everything that they're asking us to do. MR. MIESZCAK: One concern as long as I've been on this board is the safety issue. You have a garage or whatever and it's converted, you have plumbing, you have no permits, somebody's living there, you have electrical, it's not safe -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Nobody's living there, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: And we don't know if permits were pulled back in the Eighties or not. The man that lived there that we bought the house from, the duplex from, was a builder. Now he's in California and he's not cooperating with me at all. So perhaps he got permits, maybe he didn't get permits. But he owned four lots there and he converted a lot of stuff. Page 27 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask: If you're not going to use it as a rental unit, can you pull the permits by owner-builder? I'll ask our resident -- MR. KELLY: If it's a duplex, then I'm not sure. If it was a single-family home, then yes, they can pull a permit as an owner and have an engineer even do the permit by affidavit. But since it's a duplex -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: It's a building behind the duplex. MR. KELLY: But since the original property is a duplex, I don't think that constitutes sole ownership. I believe you do have to have a contractor actually pull the permits for you. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, that's what we're trying to do, isn't it? MR. KELLY: I was answering the question. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. KELLY: No, that's okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can pull your own building permit if you're the owner of the property. And the point is, that if it was a rental unit then you would need a contractor to do it. If it is not a rental, not a duplex, you probably need a contractor to -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: That's fine. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, I can see how they went down one path and it took a lot of time doing discovery, and now they've switched gears and they're going down a different path which is a better option for them. I don't think the board should impede that. I make a motion for the 90-day extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm going to ask, do you see any safety problems in that site? Page 28 April 26, 2012 INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, not at all. Because the renters that she has in there right now, they don't have access to that location now. She's using it as a storage unit. We confirmed that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to extend it 90 days. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you have 90 days. And hopefully if you don't get it done within 90 days, come back to us and we'll take it on at that time. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: It will be done for sure. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is John and Denise T.C. Brimmer, Case 2007090878. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. BRIMMER: Good morning. This is not the place I expected to be. As from when we met in January, you suggested that we hire professionals. So we added another professional to manage the project. As of the middle of May we fired that team because they didn't return phone calls and they didn't do anything. So we hired a new team, Mr. Garcia and Mr. McCleary as our surveyor, and they have submitted the information. It was denied. Page 29 April 26, 2012 We found out the gravest mistake. They said the trusses of the roof that was on the garage, which is a detached, were built in 2008. The garage was put up in the late Eighties or Nineties before we purchased the property. We have the engineer signed off on the stability of it, and my husband's there submitting everything that they found wrong right now, including the beginning of April, the 9th, we found out we needed to do an elevation for the garage. So that is all done and being submitted as we speak. But because it's not finished, we're going to need an extension, and I'm going to leave that up to you to make sure we're completely in compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. Good morning. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have any comments on the case? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: She submitted, you know, a few times. Both times there was quite a bit of time in between. The submissions were made towards the end of the time that was given. So this would be the third, I believe the third extension. So the county doesn't necessarily object. We're hoping that we're almost at completion right now. She seems pretty confident. She explained to me this morning that someone is down at the county as we speak to resubmit for the third time, hopefully all the corrections this time are taken care of. The county just requests that if you do give an extension of time that -- MS. BRIMMER: Make it short. I mean -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yeah, I think she's right there. Close. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What would you recommend? The request here is 90 days. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I think that's fair. I think 90 days is fair. Page 30 April 26, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion for 90 days, but consider this to be the last one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. We have a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Ninety days. And you heard what Mr. Lefebvre said. MS. BRIMMER: Yeah. Prayer hopefully -- the only thing I think might be the hold-up is the person that originally the first two times actually was lying that the truss was built in 2008. So I'm hoping the engineer signing off on the stability of the building fixes that. But that would be the only thing that I can see. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Great. Well, good luck to you, and I hope we don't see you soon. MS. BRIMMER: Me as well. Maybe over cocktails, but not here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. Page 31 April 26, 2012 MS. BAKER: The next case is Kirsten Martucci, Case CELU201110006574. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MARTUCCI: Good morning, how are you? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have the ability to speak for the owner of the property? MR. MARTUCCI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I say that so it's on the record and we can go from there. MR. MARTUCCI: I have a notarized letter to speak for him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Perfect. Okay, why don't you give us a little background. MR. MARTUCCI: Okay. We have a concrete pumping business and we had it at the house, and we did have a complaint to move it. We got till I think the end of May to move. We have -- it took a while but we have purchased a piece of property over here off of Market Avenue and we have the closing papers. We closed 3/26. But we had to put a substantial down payment. So in order to -- it's a vacant piece of property. We have asked to go to the end of the year because we need money to clear the land and to develop it. We'd like to move the equipment over to the industrial section. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What type of equipment? Are you talking about a pump or -- MR. MARTUCCI: I have three big boom pumps and three trailer pumps, yes, sir. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. I spoke with the property owner yesterday. They have gone through a lot, at this point have done quite a bit. They purchased Page 32 April 26, 2012 property off of Market Street; very much want to come to compliance. Their request for an extension is 365 days. I think that is realistic because of any county requirements as far as pulling permits for land clearing, any SIP, site improvement plans or site development plans that may be needed. I think a realistic number is that 365 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So not the January that's in the letter? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Oh, the end of the year, I'm sorry. I was -- MR. MARTUCCI: Yes, it's just the end of the year. I'm hoping it will be by summer to work on it and get it done but -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Well, that's better. I apologize. MR. MARTUCCI: No problem, no problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the county has no objection to granting an extension? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What say the Board? MR. KELLY: I just have a question. Does the new property that was just purchased, does it have to be improved in order to park the vehicles there? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It does. MR. KELLY: I have no problem with the extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess I don't want to rehear the case, but are these vehicles -- can neighbors see these vehicles? I mean, I'm trying to figure out, wrap my head around what is the reason why the complaint came about. And if I was a neighbor and I had equipment, which I assume that probably goes out early and everything, driving by my house and then finding out that this case originated here actually in June, to find out that it's going to be a year and a half before the equipment's moved, I would look at government and say wow, they're moving real slow. That was your option to buy a piece of property and go through Page 33 April 26, 2012 all the process. There probably was a shorter option maybe to rent space for a short term to put your equipment. So maybe if you can just help me with that. MR. MARTUCCI: Yes, sir. With the business we have, it's not that easy to rent a piece, because we do have to wash the machines, we have to maintenance the machines and we have to be set up. Because every day they come in the machines get washed because it is concrete. And a lot of places we went to rent from, you have to have certain equipment, pads, and there is stuff that we have to be containment with as far as when we change oils and do stuff like that, which we did have at the house because we did set it up for that originally. And I don't have any immediate neighbors beside me. And the neighbors across the canal, I put -- I built a big 20-foot berm and spent a lot of money putting oak trees up so they can't see me. But as far as just driving down the road, I went and talked to that neighbor that complained because I knew who it was, and I had asked him, do we wake you up, were my guys disrespectful, do we drive fast? He said, no, you guys are -- you don't wake me up, I don't hear you. I do not -- you guys drive very respectful, slow, they wave, it's just I don't want it here, you're depreciating my home value. But he can't see my home from his house. But the only reason why, sir, is it took a while to find a piece because nowadays you have to put such a big down-payment down on a piece of property. You know, we had to put like 30 grand down. And it drained us a little bit with payroll and fuel being so high. So we just -- I'm hoping this summer we can be gone. But I'd like to ask the end of the year because we do have to put a fence, we do have to put fill to come into compliance, and I'm even going to have to put water and all that stuff out there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did this come about because there was no -- what's the license you're required -- the occupancy license, Page 34 April 26, 2012 did you ever pull that for that particular type business? MR. MARTUCCI: We are in the process. We are going to get that done, sir. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any other questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. KELLY: Make a motion we extend it till January of 2013. And just for sake of argument should we do it today's date in January? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, I would think that would be the way to go. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have a date for our meeting in January? MS. BAKER: No. MR. KELLY: No, not yet? Okay, well, let's do it today's date then. What's today, the 26th? Do the 26th of January, 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second from Lionel. All those -- any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) Page 35 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, hopefully you'll be out of there this summer. MR. MARTUCCI: That's what I wanted. Thank you gentlemen very much. MS. BAKER: The next case is also for Kirsten Martucci, Case CESD20110008406. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MARTUCCI: I think this is on the shed. We have not followed up with that because we're going to take it with us. It's going to be moved to the future location. It's sitting about 25, 30 feet off the canal. And I think that was -- was that the problem, it was too close? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It was the original permitting on that shed. MR. MARTUCCI: The original permitting. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes. So when it's moved it would obviously need to be re-permitted where it's going. But that's the reason, you know, the extension of time came up on this case, is clearly he needs to move to the other property so he can bring that with him for storage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there anything that needs to be done to the other property in order for you to move the shed? MR. MARTUCCI: That's -- we have to put the -- yes, sir, yes, sir, we have to put the fill in and put the fence up, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you still need the January date for that or can that be done sooner? MR. MARTUCCI: Probably. Because -- if I can get it done by summer, I'll move it. But I don't want to move it until I put a fence up because it keeps all my tools, you know, and all my parts in it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other discussion from the -- MR. KELLY: Is there a demo permit required to take it from one property and put it on another, where it needs a permit to place it? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Electric? Page 36 April 26, 2012 MR. MARTUCCI: No, sir, there's no electric. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: There's no electric, no plumbing, no. Just pick up, move. But permitted when it gets to its final destination, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motion from the Board? MR. KELLY: I'll make the same motion I made on the last case, until January 26th, 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second from Mr. L'Esperance. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Hopefully we won't see you for a while. MR. MARTUCCI: Hopefully not. Thank you, guys. Have a good one. MS. BAKER: Okay, we have two additional stipulations so we will need to amend the agenda again. Number three under stipulations will be case Page 37 April 26, 2012 CESD20100016684, Joseph R. and Betty J. Faircloth, which was number one under hearings. And the fourth one will be Case CENA20120000965, Dominick Cammuso, which was number 15 under hearings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we start out by -- oh, yeah, motion to amend the agenda. MR. KELLY: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to modify the agenda. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. (Mr. Pacheco and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permit or demolition permits, inspection and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 Page 38 April 26, 2012 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to 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 Department to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you understand the stipulation? MR. PACHECO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you agree to it? MR. PACHECO: I do agree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, do we have any motions or discussions from the board? MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the stipulated agreement as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. PACHECO: Thank you very much. Page 39 April 26, 2012 MS. BAKER: Next case is Case CESD20110014881, Barry W. Barnett, Jr. and Michelle A. Barnett. MR. MIESZCAK: What number? MR. L'ESPERANCE: 13. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs in the amount of$80 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 $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 visit, 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 KAUFMAN: Thank you. Ms. Barnett, have you -- you understand all the provisions of the stipulation? MS. BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you agree to all of that? MS. BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion from the board? (No response.) Page 40 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. BARNETT: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is CESD20100016684, Joseph R. and Betty J. Faircloth. (Mr. Faircloth and Investigator Short were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Morning again. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one: Pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and Page 41 April 26, 2012 certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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 KAUFMAN: Mr. Faircloth, do you understand the stipulation that you agreed to? MR. FAIRCLOTH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments? MR. FAIRCLOTH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 42 April 26, 2012 Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. FAIRCLOTH: Thank you, have a good day. MS. BAKER: Next case is CENA20120000965, Dominick Cammuso. (Investigator Condomina was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one: Pay operational costs in the amount of$81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by removing any unauthorized accumulation of topsoil and litter consisting of but not limited to vegetation, material, concrete, et cetera, from the property to a site intended for final disposal or an area on the property authorized for such storage, and/or obtain approval for proper disposal in conformance with federal, state and local laws and regulations within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of$250 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Four: Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of this -- of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Five: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you had been in contact with them obviously? Page 43 April 26, 2012 INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the Board? MR. KELLY: Yeah, question. This is just a driveway that was put in filling up a drainage swale? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: No, this one is for -- they actually abated that, the install of the driveway. This one is for prior land -- this is a new owner that took over some -- took ownership over land that was basically used as a yard trash site without authorization from the county. New owner got it, he's working into compliance, got a, you know, business tax receipt, got a Site Improvement Plan. He's just working to get everything into compliance. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You okay, Cherie' or do you want a Page 44 April 26, 2012 break? How about another -- till a quarter after or so? MS. BAKER: Okay, that brings us to hearings. The next case will be case CEVR20120001904, Stephen J. Lockwood and Company, LLC. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 87-41. Description of violation: Presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation including but not limited to Brazilian Pepper. Location/address where violation exists: 9051 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida, 34103. Folio 176681007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Stephen J. Lockwood and Company, LLC, care of Cameron Real Estate Services, Inc., 2390 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 100, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: February 8th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 13th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 28th, 2012. Date of re-inspection: March 29th, 2012. Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Good morning. For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. As stated, I did visit -- it's an unimproved tract of land, okay, at 9051 Tamiami Trail North, okay. It's full of prohibited exotic vegetation in this unimproved parcel. Further research show that the parcel of property is accounted for in a PUD called Pavilion Lake. And the ordinance on the PUD is 87-41 . And within that ordinance it requires exotic removal and maintenance, okay. So that's what Stephen Lockwood was cited for is violation of Collier County Ordinance 87-41 . Page 45 April 26, 2012 And I do have some photos here if you'd like to see them to kind of show you what the shape of it is, and then what it shows in the PUD, just to solidify that if you need it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photos? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Actually, no, he has not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show the photos. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And after you see them, I'll accept a motion to accept them, if the respondent has no objection. MR. KELLY: I make a motion to accept the exhibit into the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. An eye test. INVESTIGATOR JONES: I was hoping you'd be able to see it a little bit more clearly. But you can see that the highlighted tract of land there. Okay, you see the shape of it. Now I'd like to follow that with just the PUD master plan out of the Pavilion Lakes PUD so you Page 46 April 26, 2012 can see where it's accounted for. And if you look where it says wetland buffer cypress on the northern end of that preserve, for all intent and purposes, you can see where that's the tract of land as it's recorded in that PUD. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR JONES: So basically that's the case. You know, those are the basic facts. If there's any other questions you have, we have plenty of information, as well as Mr. Minor does as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. MINOR: Good morning, Mr. Kaufman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you have a question before we MR. KELLY: Just real quick. Do you have any pictures of the Brazilian Pepper? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes I do, actually. This is a photo that was taken yesterday as part of the pre-hearing inspections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this part of the photos that you showed the respondent? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Actually, no, it's -- I think he's okay with it, it's just -- MR. MINOR: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to accept this as a -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 47 April 26, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: It's huge. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MINOR: Good morning. My name is Bruce Minor. I'm here on behalf of Stephen J. Lockwood Company. And I'm here hopefully to redirect this violation to the Pavilion Lakes PUD and condominium complex based on information that I have here. And I've got packages here for each member to review, with photos and actually have the restated condominium docs, the areas in which I feel are pertinent to the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion to accept -- have you seen these packages? INVESTIGATOR JONES: I haven't seen every page but I have no issue with that if we can just get it resolved, if it helps. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Page 48 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MINOR: If you will, there's actually two separate paperclip exhibits. If you take off the left paperclip it will give you the two separate parcels. The one that's titled Pavilion Lakes, Pavilion Club and Pavilion Terraces chain of title is more or less exhibits that include photos of the property that might be a little easier to see than what was shown on the overhead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I understand this properly, you represent -- MR. MINOR: Stephen J. Lockwood and Company at his request. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, now, this is part of a PUD? MR. MINOR: That parcel is, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the homeowner's association is where you think this violation belongs, is that what I'm -- MR. MINOR: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: What you're trying to argue is that within the PUD for Pavilion Lakes PUD it states that it's their responsibility to maintain this property. MR. MINOR: That's correct. And what I'm going to utilize is the other packet, which is the recently -- and I say recently, 2008, completely restated condominium documents of the Pavilion Lake tract. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the homeowner's association at Pavilion Lakes? MR. MINOR: We have in the past. Not pursuant to this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you suspect that they would not have a problem resolving this situation, or -- Page 49 April 26, 2012 MR. MINOR: It's my belief that they're the ones that reported it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, the plot thickens. INVESTIGATOR JONES: If I may let you know, actually a property manager of Pavilion Lake is here today. So if he would like to come up here and provide any further information that he may have to help anybody out, just so you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would think this would be the time to bring him up, swear him in and have all the testimony at one time. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question. MR. MINOR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who is paying the taxes on this particular parcel? MR. MINOR: Stephen J. Lockwood and Company. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So he is the owner of that property. MR. MINOR: He is the owner through kind of a convoluted receipt of the property. And it's outlined in the chain of title. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you continue. Sony to interrupt you. MR. MINOR: Okay. In the restated documents for the Pavilion Club, which is in charge of the Pavilion Lake PUD, if you look at the first -- but what I've tried to do here is highlight the pertinent paragraphs that we're dealing with. And on the front page of the packet I'm just showing that this is a completely restated PUD document, including articles of incorporation and the bylaws of the PUD. I've just highlighted that just for the purpose of indicating. And then it says on the second page, which is actually Page 1 of the declaration, the description of condominium property, it says the land submitted to the condominium form of ownership by the original declaration. The land, in quotes, is legally described in Exhibit A of the original declaration, which is hereby incorporated by reference. And if you'll just follow on, on the next page, I tried to put this in Page 50 April 26, 2012 some kind of order. In the re-declaration of the documents, they show the definitions as association property, meaning all property real and personal owned or leased by the association for the use and benefit of the unit owners. I put in the column over there conflict with 718.103, paragraph three. That would just follow to the next one. A survey and plot plan attached to the original declaration, Exhibit A, Pages 7 through 23, and incorporated by reference herein are a survey of the land, legal description and plot plans which graphically describe the improvements in which units are located and which show all the units, including their identification numbers, locations and approximate dimensions and the common elements and limited common elements. Together with this declaration, the exhibit identifies the common elements and limited elements and the relative locations and dimensions. A new boundary survey is attached as Exhibit C, which shows the corrected legal description of the condominium. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that possibly we may need a read from the County Attorney on this particular issue. What do you think? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree. Why don't we continue and then we will ask the attorney. MR. MINOR: On Page 8 of the declaration of condo, 9.1, the top paragraph, which is highlighted, association maintenance, association's responsible for the protection, maintenance and repair and replacement of all common elements and association property other than the limited common elements that are required elsewhere herein to be maintained by the unit owners. The cost is a common expense. The association is responsible, including without limitation, and then it goes on to identify the limited common elements. INVESTIGATOR JONES: If I could just add something very briefly. I did speak with the County Attorney regarding this matter and he did feel comfortable with it going forward before you. As far Page 51 April 26, 2012 as code enforcement's concerned, I just followed Florida Statute 162 by citing the property owner as identified in the tax records. So based on that, we both felt comfortable bringing it forth before you. But of course we can, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand, that's why I asked who's paying the taxes on it. MR. MINOR: On Page 36 of the declaration, the highlighted paragraph 22.3 conflicts. And this is where I had an issue with the previous page that said that their definition of the property, association property. The Florida Statute 718 -- well, it says the conflicts, if there is a conflict between any provision of the Declaration of Condominium Act, the Condominium Act shall control. If there is a conflict between the Declaration of Association Articles Incorporated or Bylaws, the Declaration shall control. Now, if you go to the next page, which is from Florida Statute 718.103, paragraph three, as highlighted, association property means the property real and personal which is owned or leased by or is dedicated by a recorded plat to the association for the use and benefit of its members. The next page shows the restated site plan for the -- not the PUD but for the condominium Pavilion Club that does not include the subject property that we're discussing here. So this is a restate of the Pavilion Club association property that they legally own now. Originally this property was deeded to both parties. It was deeded to -- in part of the PUD it was deeded to Pavilion Lakes Development Company, and it was also deeded to the C-4 owner. And the C-4 owner, which was prior to Mr. Lockwood or S.J. Lockwood and Company. They recorded first, thereby acquiring the property. Speaking to the tax issue, from day one the entire parcel, which includes the subject property, has been taxed by the county as a C-4 Page 52 April 26, 2012 zoned property and it was all in one parcel number at that time. Now, Mr. Lockwood came in and purchased the property in 2000. He purchased the property. And the deed that was recorded did not include the preserve, if you will, the subject property, by legal description. A year later -- or coming into collecting taxes in November, the original owner received a tax bill on that property. The county had -- I don't know how this came about, but they ended up subdividing and gave it its own property identification number and continued to -- and the tax for that particular parcel, which is the preserve, for the first year was about $4,000 because they called it C-4 zone. The property value increased to the point of the last five years until we went to the county and spoke with them. The taxes on the property were six and 7,000. The property was assessed--- it's .63 acres on U.S. 41, and it was assessed as a C-4 zoned property, improperly. So S.J. Lockwood and Company had been, I don't know, prejudiced if you will by -- I mean, he has paid $50,000 in real estate taxes to the county that shouldn't have been charged. I went down to the county in 2003 originally to question the whole issue because it was becoming evident that this parcel had something to do with the PUD. Now, I was told at that time that hey, it's C-4 zoned property, even though it's a preserve. You could go down and probably get it approved to do something with it. So consequently Mr. Lockwood felt, you know if I got C property on 41 and it's worth $535,000, I'm not going to reject the offer for the previous owner to add that on. So it was re-filed again with the original legal description, which included both parcels and one legal description. But it was still getting two separate tax bills because it had been separated out. In 2008 I started looking into the possibility of putting some parking there, because the property to the north of it, the C-4 zone where the Pavilion Terraces is, is lacking for parking, desperately Page 53 April 26, 2012 lacking for parking. And it used to be occupied by the La-Z-Boy Furniture by which the parking requirement was very skinny back then for a furniture store, and it still is. So it really limited our ability to do anything as far as putting tenants in. I mean, it's had vacancies ever since then because of parking. We've turned away several people that were interested, especially now where its location is right across from Mercato, and we've had to turn away due to the parking issue. I'm getting a little dry. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a question for Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Your off-the-cuff comment or read on this, please? MS. RAWSON: Well, I guess it depends on who is the violator, you know. And what the county is telling you, the code officials are telling you, is that they cited the person who's on the title, that they've spoken to the County Attorney and that is the proper way to proceed. But the issue is, you know, who is the violator, and therefore who can you lien, if that's the case. MR. L'ESPERANCE: If the issue is who is the violator, is that our purview to decide that? MS. RAWSON: Well, it would be nice if you had an opinion from the County Attorney, but apparently they've been told that you cite the person who is on the title, and that's what they've done. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And Mr. Minor is doing his best at this particular moment to deflect that, correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes, he is. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess I have a question which would maybe clear it up. Hypothetically, if you were to sell this property, who would get the proceeds? Page 54 April 26, 2012 MR. MINOR: They would go to Mr. Lockwood. But if I could continue just a little bit more now that I've kind of gathered my thoughts here? On the last page of the first document, this parcel that we're talking about here, the subject parcel which is the cypress, is included in the Phase 14 legal description as part of that parcel. So Phase 14, which is -- consists of two buildings, a couple of covered parking and this parcel including all the rest of the cypress is -- it's imperative -- they didn't change the legal description on Page 14, because if they were to change that legal description and something happened to any buildings in there, they wouldn't be able to rebuild. The property was put up at 10 units per acre, it's got 156 units and it's got 156.7 acres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this parcel was required for them, for the county to grant their ability to do the PUD. MR. MINOR: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And without this parcel, this is after the fact, obviously, if they were to go today to do this, they would need that six acres as wetlands, as part of the requirement. MR. MINOR: It's six-tenths of an acre and that represents six units. So because it's part -- you know, because it's part of the PUD, we're maintaining that because of a stipulation, if you go to the other packet that I had with the pictures and photos and such, it shows the title. I've got the overhead photo of the Pavilion Lakes, as well as this parcel that we're referring to. And I've also got the county's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, let me cut you off here. Sounds like Mr. Lockwood wants all the benefits of the association to take care of his property but still have the right to sell it and do whatever he wants with it. But a lot of the comments, one of the last comments that you just made was that this parcel was included in the original PUD to make up -- or to make 10 units per acre, 156 units. So if that's the case then the rights of this property have been Page 55 April 26, 2012 used. You cannot now come in and say well, I want to put a, let's hypothetically say, a 4,000 square foot commercial building on this property. So this property really should be deeded back to the association as preserve. MR. ZARELLI: We've been trying that. We've been trying that. MR. LEFEBVRE: And basically work out some agreement that it comes under the ownership of the association. Now, if they've been working on that and they haven't been successful or whatever the case is, that tells me that Mr. Lockwood is trying to reap the benefits of a sale or owning the property without paying for maintenance of the property. He owns the property. I feel comfortable that we move forward on this case. There is an argument of who owns the property. He's been paying taxes for it. If there was a question about who owns the property or -- he's been getting the benefit of the property. Also, in the highlighted sections here you state that it's for the benefit -- one of it says the benefit -- Page 2 in the legal size paper, it says association property means all property, real estate owned or leased by the association for the use and benefit for the unit owners. They don't have the use and benefit of this property. They don't have -- right now the use and benefit would be if there was walking paths. The only benefit they're getting is under the original PUD this property was used for density issues to get 10 units per acre. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are you making a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I guess I make a motion that there's a violation to be found. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you make a motion that we proceed and hear this and accept the County Attorney's opinion that they are the owner of record and we proceed and hear the case? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think there's a case -- we know who owns the property. There's no argument there. The property is owned by the respondent and it goes back to -- let me give Page 56 April 26, 2012 you my comments on what you said. I disagree to some extent and I disagree because this is a piece of property that probably way back when should have been part -- it should have been owned by the PUD, and for whatever reason it wasn't. I'm kind of surprised by the county accepting a PUD when they don't own the property. But that's not for us to decide, that would be the County Attorney. And I have a feeling that they're passing that on to us. MR. ZARELLI: Can I give you a little background on how that happened? In July of 1986 Pavilion Lakes Development went to the county with this promise of building this condominium association, okay, which is Pavilion Club. Well, they were denied because it was -- they were going to build 156 units, at that time was 10 units per acre. They were shy .67 of an acre. In May of 1987 they came back and resubmitted a new document saying that they own all of the preserve, including this piece that he's talking about, which is now called lot 194, okay. We got it. The county gave them the approval. We were within 15.67 acres. 157 units were built, tada, tada, goes on and on. Well, December, 1987 all of a sudden we don't know about this, we as homeowner's and part of the association, it's now a piece that is owned by the prior owner he talked about, that's a Maurice Connel (Phonetic). Maurice Connel sold Lockwood this piece of property, that's called lot 201, which is where the La-Z-Boy thing was, it's a commercial piece of property. And along with that, lot 194. We go on and on. And in 2001 the county comes to us and says we are in violation of this exotics issue, okay, for the preserve, which is running on 41. Our board and our manager responded. We spent $30,000 that year and have gone on and cleaned that property. Well, some of the homeowner's were a little upset about this thing so we started doing Page 57 April 26, 2012 some investigation. And that's when we found out we didn't even own that piece of property and we were cleaning it for all these years, okay. Things went on and on. We've got all the information, all the lawyers involved and all that kind of stuff. So we don't own that piece, but it does belong to the PUD, as Bruce said. True, fine. A year ago I met with Bruce and Scott Cameron and we discussed perhaps, and we found that they cannot build on this piece of property, all right. Parking lots, their parking lot on 201 is more than sufficient for the businesses that are now. If there was some more office space or office buildings where they are more people, perhaps the code needed more parking. A year ago they said okay, we'll give you this piece, 194, all right. We'll talk to Mr. Lockwood and we'll assure you that we'll give you this piece if you give us an REA, a restricted easement agreement, to build a parking lot, okay, in case they needed it. Well, time goes by, a lot of us are north and south and east and west, and it wasn't until this past June, I'm sorry, June of 2011, that our lawyer Tony Pires finally got something from the county, a zoning thing that said Section 9.03.03.B.5 and all this other stuff, I'm sorry. But in it, it states the county forbids you to build any commercial thing on a PUD property. Even though it's not our property, it's their property. So they can't build on it, as long as it's part of our PUD. And we have this zoning verification notice from the county here signed and sealed and et cetera. And as far as it stands now, if we continue with this, we don't feel we're -- we've done our part of cleaning that. But gentlemen, this is contiguous property. There's no line in between it. The wind blows, we clean our exotics. It blows from their end, which they have exotics, as David says, it comes down to our property and we continue, we continue to clean it. There's no stopping these seeds blowing down. These guys didn't have to clean it until Page 58 April 26, 2012 2008, because that property was deemed commercial property. And your laws say that there's no need to clean exotics until such time that there's going to be development on that. Well, these guys paid 50, $60,000, of which they should not have paid. But that's their problem. Lockwood's got deep pockets. We don't. In 2008 it became preserve. Still part of our PUD. And as long as it's part of our PUD you gentlemen and the county states that we cannot do anything with that property. They could sell it, but it will still be PUD, our PUD. And they can't build on it. We went back to them in January and said look, here's a zoning verification says you can't do this, all right, are you still willing to give us or deed us the property. We'll give you a dollar. There's nothing you can do on it. We can't build on it, we don't want to build on it. And they said no, it was kind of a joke. No, forget about it. We don't want to do any business with you. That's where we stand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that we understand. It seems to me strange that you can do a PUD in the county and then sell off part of the wetlands to somebody else. MR. ZARELLI: We never sold it -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I didn't say you did -- MR. ZARELLI: -- the developer did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Regardless of who sold it, but either you need the wetlands and it's part of the PUD or you don't. I don't understand that. That would be up to the county I guess to describe what really happened. MR. ZARELLI: It's in here. MR. KELLY: Sir? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. KELLY: Just from one person's opinion, I think if we look at it from the 30,000 foot view, I think we can surmise that the venue Page 59 April 26, 2012 here today is probably not appropriate for what sounds like great arguments on both sides. I think that as a board we only can vote on what we've been put in front of us, and it's very clear that our requirement is to decide whether or not there's a violation. If there is a violation, we therefore go forward with trying to figure out a time frame or resolution to solve that violation. And if the violation's not solved within the time frame, a fine goes against the owner of the property, unfortunately. At that time maybe you can take it to another venue. We're quasi-judicial, barely at that. And then maybe take it to another venue and then maybe a civil route at that point. But I think everything that you've said so far is very interesting, and I'd love to be involved in that -- MR. ZARELLI: Ten years I was involved with it. MR. KELLY: But this isn't -- unfortunately I don't think this is the right venue. MR. ZARELLI: Well, I kind of agree and disagree, but -- and it's not my venue to do. But they're the owners, it cites they're responsible. All we want them to do is clean. That's .67 of our three acres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion on the table, by the way. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can that motion be repeated, please? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. That was your motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we have a motion that it exists. Do we have a second on the motion? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Now, should this pass -- this is discussion on the motion -- this will go against the owners of the property, that's the only thing we're able to do. And I'm sure that the owners of the property will have a Page 60 April 26, 2012 next step and a next step as was discussed here. So any discussion on the -- any further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, all those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Unfortunately you may say that we're passing the buck, but that's all we can do is to rule that it's either a violation or it's not a violation. Who really owns the property, is going to be something--you're going to wind up probably in a court. MR. MINOR: There's never any question of who owns the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. KELLY: Who's responsible to take care of it? MR. MINOR: Because they had a maintenance agreement that said they would take care of it, which I hadn't gotten to yet. MR. KELLY: It wouldn't have mattered, actually. Because anything we do goes against the owner anyways. So -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jean, do you have any problem with our -- MS. RAWSON: No, I don't. And I think you're right, this is a very interesting case. But it's probably past your pay grade. And, you know, you can only decide if there's a violation and if so, tell them to fix it within so many days and it goes against the owner of record. Page 61 April 26, 2012 They're going to fight this out in some other court. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, we've decided the violation exists. And now do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR JONES: I do. The recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81 .43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by, one: Must remove all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation by hand removal methods and obtain any necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated. Two: The prohibited exotic vegetation base/stump must be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide, and visual tracer dye shall be applied when the prohibited exotic vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains within blank days or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed. And three: The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. I think this is going to wind up going forward, so we should, just to keep it from coming back to us, provide enough time for this to be resolved where it probably will be in the courts. Anybody like to take on the -- MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with a term of 365 days and $100 per day for both two and three. Page 62 April 26, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. The reason I do is if there's some litigation, that may allow time for the litigation to wind its way through or possibly for the two parties to come to agreement to selling the property to the association. MR. MIESZCAK: Right. Makes sense. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion -- further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. We're going to take a 10 minute break. We'll be back here at -- we'll make it an extended break, 11 :00. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to bring the code enforcement meeting back to order. And that brings us to -- MS. BAKER: The next case is number four, Case CESD20090010573, Edgar Perez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is violation the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.01 .06.B.1 .A and Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Section 105.1 . Description of violation: No Collier County building permits Page 63 April 26, 2012 were obtained for electrical and plumbing modifications to the main structure and fence, invalid building permit for horse barn without issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Location/address where violation exists: 3445 56th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 38664320004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Edgar Perez, 3445 56th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34102. Date violation first observed: June 10th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 26th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 10th, 2011 . Date of re-inspection: March 21st, 2012. Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. Just a correction on number 4 for the statement of violation, the zip code should be 34120. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Four photos taken by Investigator Scavone June 10th, 2009, stored and retrieved from a data base which I have legal access to, as well as three additional photos taken by Investigator Scavone July 13th, 2010, stored and retrieved from a data base that I have legal access to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to accept them? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 64 April 26, 2012 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: On June 10th, 2009, Investigator Scavone made a site visit with the Collier County Sheriffs Office and observed electrical and plumbing modifications in relation to a marijuana grow house as well as an unpermitted structure and fence in the rear of the property. Several attempts to gain compliance from the lender were made, but the lender has not done so and to date the violations remain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was observed first in 2009? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Certainly has a green thumb. That last photo, that's a picture of what? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That's the unpermitted fence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board? MR. KELLY: Make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion on the floor. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's seconded. All those in favor -- hold on, we have a motion and a second -- MR. DOINO: I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, he did. Okay, Ron. He used to be a ventriloquist, and that's a problem. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 65 April 26, 2012 MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for this case? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I do. Recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violation by, one: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank days will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to tackle this one? MR. KELLY: Anybody have a problem with 30 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation, time frame of 30 days and a fine of$250 per day. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. Page 66 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you do that -- MR. MIESZCAK: He has a motion. Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the grow houses, we typically have gone with a fine of$500 a day, if you would like to reconsider. Just my comment. MR. MIESZCAK: I don't think it will make any difference at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who owns the property? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: There was a lis pendens filed on June 30th, 2011, but as of now, Edgar Perez is the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the bank involved in this is -- probably Bank of America. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, we have a second for 30 days, $250 a day fine, and $80.57 as the cost. Any other discussions on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Eric. MS. BAKER: Next case is number seven, Case CESD20110014115, Oslay Fernandez. Page 67 April 26, 2012 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06.B.1 .A. Description of violation: A screen enclosure with canceled Permit number 2005-033480. Also a pool decking and shed type structures on the property without Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4120 68th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 38902360001. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Oslay Fernandez, 3020 Southeast 103rd Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33165. Date violation first observed: October 10th, 2011 . Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October 13th, 2011 . Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November I lth, 2011. Date of re-inspection: March 14th, 2012. Results of re-inspection: Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Eric, you're on. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two aerial photos of the subject property printed from Collier County Property Appraiser's Office website January 10th, 2012, and a photo taken by myself January 10th, 2012 from a neighboring property. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. Second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 68 April 26, 2012 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR SHORT: On October 7th, 2011, an anonymous complaint came in regarding expired permits. Investigator Asaro made a site visit on October 10th, 2011 and found the property was not accessible, as there is a locked gate. Utilizing the Collier County Property Appraiser's GIS mapping, Investigator Asaro discovered a screen enclosure with expired permit number 2005-033480, decking, a pool, shed type structures on the property without Collier County permits. On October 17th, 2011, the code enforcement foreclosure team began requesting compliance from the lender. The case was transferred to myself on November 17th, 2011 . I performed a site visit November 30th, 2011 and found the violation remained. On January 10th, 2012 I made a site visit and took a photo visible from a neighboring -- of the violations visible from a neighboring property. To date the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the property occupied? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It is not. MR. KELLY: Do you have anything covering the pool? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the pool green also? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Due to the locked gate, I cannot confirm. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The entire property is fenced in? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That is correct. Page 69 April 26, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: The fence, does it have total integrity, any holes in it that you could know, see or tell? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Not that I can see. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Do you have a proposal? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. My recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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 Page 70 April 26, 2012 county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before a motion is made, you stated prior that they tried to get in touch with the bank to get this violation corrected. So it's not been foreclosed upon, correct? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: No. There was a lis pendens filed July 6th, 2010. MR. LEFEBVRE: July 6th, 2010. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Banks like to hold off on that so they don't start accruing any faults. Anybody like to take this on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I will. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a motion. Sixty days and a $200 fine per day. MR. KELLY: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. The costs are 80.29 as well? All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Eric. MS. BAKER: Next case is number eight, Case Page 71 April 26, 2012 CESD20110015948, Michael Zager and Paula J. Rhoads. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Sections 10.02.06.B.1.A, building and land alteration permits, and Section 10.02.06.B.1 .E, improvement of property prior to issuance of building permits. Description of violation: Remodeling alterations to inside and outside of the house without first obtaining the proper Collier County permits and inspections. Location/address where violation exists: 557 Cypress Way East, Naples, Florida, 34110. Folio 65322840006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Michael Zager and Paula J. Rhoads, 557 Cypress Way East, Naples, Florida, 34110. Date violation first observed: November 17th, 2011 . Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: November 21st, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 21st, 2011. Date of re-inspection: February 10th, 2012. Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: John, you're on. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Good morning. For the record, John Connetta, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit A is two photos taken by me November 17th, 2011 showing a new partition wall that was installed as you walk in the front doorway. Exhibit B, two photos taken by me November 17th showing the new shower stall and a new toilet that was installed. And Exhibit C, two photos taken by me November 17th, 2011 showing a new water line and an electrical outlet that was installed on the lanai. Page 72 April 26, 2012 On November 17th, 2011 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. We have a motion to accept the exhibits? MR. MIESZCAK: A, B, C, I make that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have to be faster. MR. KELLY: Yeah, I'm working on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, John, you're on. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: On November 17th, 2011 I responded and spoke to one of the tenants at the house, Nick Cosmo, who stated that the person in charge of the house, a Curt Owens, had hired to some guys to do alterations to the inside and outside of the house. Cosmo agreed and signed an entry consent form allowing code enforcement investigator to enter the house and take several photographs of the changes being made. Once inside, I observed the partition wall that was installed separating the living room from the front doorway and the bathroom to the right, with a new toilet, new tub and new shower stall. Also I observed an electrical outlet and a water line that was Page 73 April 26, 2012 installed on the outside wall of the lanai. Several attempts to locate the contact, Curt Owens, and the property owners, Michael Zager and Paula Rhoads have met with negative results. Haven't been able to contact either one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. They must have had a falling out between the tenant and the landlord, it seems. MR. CONNETTA: I guess what it was, is Curt Owens leased it from the property owners and then what he was doing is subleasing it to three other individuals that were living in the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And you have a recommendation for us? INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Recommendation that the Code Enforcement Board order 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: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demo permits, inspections, certificate of completion/occupancy within X number of days of this Page 74 April 26, 2012 hearing or a fine of X number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use assistance of Collier County's Sheriffs Office to enforce provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to try that? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine of$81 .15, 60 days at $150 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second from Mr. Lavinski All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 10, Case CESD20120000335 Arnoldo and Daisy de la Cruz. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is a violation of Collier County Land Page 75 April 26, 2012 Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.B.1.A. Description of violation: A garage enclosure, shed, elevated deck and fence without valid Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3770 47th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 39784640003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Arnoldo and Daisy de la Cruz, 3770 47th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: January 17th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 23rd, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 22nd, 2012. Date of re-inspection: March 12th, 2012. Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Eric, you're on again. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Eight photos taken by myself on January 17th, 2012 and two aerial photos from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website, one being from 2006 showing that the deck does not exist and the other, the most recent showing is that it does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do I have a motion to accept the -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 76 April 26, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: On January 17th 2012, I met with the property owner Daisy de la Cruz and obtained entry consent. I took photos of the garage enclosure, shed and decking. A notice of violation was given January 23rd, 2012 with a compliance date of February 22nd, 2012. I made contact with Daisy on February 28th, 2012. Daisy stated she is not going to abate as she is losing the home. I advised the case will be prepped for hearing. To date violations remain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board? MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that the violation exists. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lavinski, you're late, Gerald beat you. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Done. Page 77 April 26, 2012 You have a recommendation, Eric? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. 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 abate all violations by obtaining all required building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KELLY: Investigator, did you say that it was occupied? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes, she is currently renting the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I saw the electrical work in the panel there that seemed -- MR. MIESZCAK: The yellow cord? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, the yellow cord that was plugged in there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to take this on? MR. KELLY: I'm in favor of keeping a simple order and doing a smaller time frame but the electric does make me nervous, especially with people living in there. My initial was to do 30 days, but I'm thinking more like 14 now. What's the suggestions of the board members? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think it matters a whole bunch because they're not going to abate it either way. MR. KELLY: Just in case. I'll make a motion that we accept the Page 78 April 26, 2012 county's recommendation, fill in the blanks, 30 days with a fine of $250 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's $80 is the cost. And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 11, Case CESD20110006351, David H. Schaare, Jr. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Barn type structure and shed built on property without Collier County building permits. Location/Address where violation exists: 520 2nd Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 37283440007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: David H, Schaare, Jr., 520 2nd Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: April 29th, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October Page 79 April 26, 2012 20th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 18th, 2011. Date of re-inspection: April 10th, 2012. Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Patrick. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken April 9th, 2011 by Investigator Janice Potter; two photographs taken yesterday, April 25th, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'd like to present the details of the case. While on a vacant and foreclosure meet and greet, Investigator Potter observed two unpermitted structures on the back of the estates zoned property, one a barn type structure and the other one a shed. I issued the notice of violation on November 18th, 2011 via posting and regular and certified mail. Page 80 April 26, 2012 I have not had any contact with the owner; all attempts have been unsuccessful. There was a final judgment recorded on August -- recorded in August of 2010 but no certificate of title has been issued as of yet and the violation remains to this date. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Doesn't the certificate of title follow maybe five, six days after the final judgment? MS. BAKER: The final judgment sets a sale date. So if they never had that sale there wouldn't have been a certificate of title. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you know if the owners filed for bankruptcy? Because that would probably stay -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would hold it. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, we do not. MR. LEFEBVRE: That might be why. Maybe they filed for bankruptcy between -- MS. BAKER: Yeah. We'll double-check that. As of right now we are not aware that there's a bankruptcy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was part of the foreclosure team? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any discussion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to find them in violation? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion that there's a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 81 April 26, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. That Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm the abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll take a shot at it. Make a motion the respondent pay the $80.86, that they have 30 days and a fine of$100 per day. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? Page 82 April 26, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks, Patrick. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, as I discussed with you, I have an appointment I have to move on to now, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And during this time, Chris, you will be a full voting member right now with the departure of Mr. L'Esperance. (At which time, Mr. L'Esperance exited the boardroom.) MS. BAKER: Next case is number 12, Case CENA20120000290, Westok International Corp. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Collier County Code of Ordinances Section 54-185, subsection D. Description of violation: Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation located upon an unimproved property within a 200-foot radius of improved property. Location/address where violation exists: The drainage easement located between Huntington Lakes and Quail Creek. Folio 68640001003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Westok International Corporation, 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 501, Naples, Florida, 34108. Page 83 April 26, 2012 Date violation first observed: January 12th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 18th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 13th, 2012. Date of re-inspection: March 29th, 2012. Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hi, David, have some exhibits for us? INVESTIGATOR JONES: I do. But first I'd like to make a note for the record, there was a scriveners error on the notice of hearing that was provided to Westok, and the details of that error was that David Gevanas (phonetic) of 4886 Pond Apple Drive South, Naples, Florida, had been listed as registered agent. That was incorrect. The correct registered agent for Westok is David G. Budd of 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 501, Naples, Florida. And with that, I do have some case evidence in the form of a photograph of the prohibited exotics. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was the agent notified? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes, he was provided certified and regular mail. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 84 April 26, 2012 MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: And you can see here the Brazilian pepper poking through the fence there. And as stated earlier, this is an unimproved parcel that borders Huntington Lakes and Quail Creek, so -- the owner of it, Westok, according to tax records, and to date the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the INVESTIGATOR JONES: Well, I have had contact with the registered agent, David Budd, and he expressed that Westok is a dissolved corporation. And David Budd is the only registered agent that is associated with them that's still able to, you know, speak about them or -- and everything else. So that's where we're at on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the property is owned by -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Westok. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR JONES: And they've been -- you know, proper service has been given. Of course I didn't hear any response back. It may be because the corporation, according to David Budd, the registered agent, was dissolved. But we just followed procedures all the way through and then the violation still remains so we bring it to hearing. MR. HUDSON: How much land are we talking about? INVESTIGATOR JONES: How much land? Well, it's actually quite a bit. This parcel, it goes east and west and then it goes north and south. I don't know the exact acreage but the ordinance that it violates is the ordinance of exotics within 200 feet of an improved property. So there's sections of it that aren't within 200 feet and there's Page 85 April 26, 2012 sections that are. And if I spoke with somebody that was going to abate it I would specify what section should be abated according to that ordinance -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's like a narrow strip, 15 feet -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: It is. Yeah, it is. Actually, I think it's like 30 feet wide. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the exotics exist on the entire length of it? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any other pictures? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, actually I have a picture of the parcel, if you'd like to see it. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: It's highlighted in blue. You can see where it goes east and west and then runs north and south. And beyond that picture it runs further east and west and then it picks up again. But again, I just focused on the area which I assume the complaint came from. Actually, I think I know that, they left their Page 86 April 26, 2012 contact information. So that's the area which would be targeted, of course. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And any notification of what we find here will be transmitted to? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Will be transmitted to Westok, of course. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That seems to be a problem if they're dissolved. INVESTIGATOR JONES: It will be transmitted to Westok's registered agent as well, David Budd, who still represents them, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Were they the original developers of either one of these parcels? I'm just trying to figure out why they own a, like a 30-foot piece of land. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, it's another one of these cases. This easement, in quotes, is represented in Quail Creek's PUD, but Westok owns it. And Westok, yeah, similar to the previous case. The reason behind why Westok bought it, I'm sure it was early on in the development stages. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: These are properties that are all sold when they sell them for lack of payment of taxes that wind up being sold by the tax collector that people like to stay away from because -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes, you're right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so we have a motion from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion a fine exists -- I mean, a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that it exists and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 87 April 26, 2012 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're in violation. All unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: You're ready for my recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I am. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Okay. Recommendation is as follows: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one: Must obtain any necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated. 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 dollars per day will be imposed. Three: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, Page 88 April 26, 2012 and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, give it a shot. Make a motion that the respondent pay the $80.29 in costs and that item one and two be abated in 60 days or a fine of$100 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case is number 16, Case CESD20110013644, Giselle and Alejandro Melendi. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Attached garage enclosed and turned into living space. Detached garage and swimming pool with enclosure built without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3680 4th Avenue Page 89 April 26, 2012 Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 40865680007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Giselle and Alejandro Melendi, 18361 Southwest 82nd Avenue, Palmetto Way, Florida 33157. Date violation first observed: September 29th, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: November 4th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 2nd, 2011. Date of re-inspection: April 9th, 2012. Results of the re-inspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning still. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One aerial photo taken from the Property Appraiser -- Collier County Property Appraiser. Two photographs taken September 29th, 2011. One photograph taken October 26th, 2011, and two photographs taken yesterday, April 25, 2012, from a neighboring property. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? Page 90 April 26, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I would like to present details of the case. While on a vacant and foreclosed home meet and greet I observed that the home had three expired permits: One for a detached garage, two, a swimming pool, and three, a screen enclosure for the swimming pool. I also observed the garage on the principal structure was turned into living space. I'm sorry, I have not had any contact with the owner and there was a lis pendens that was filed by Countrywide and Bank of America on August 9th, 2010. But in doing research yesterday there was a final judgment that was just recorded on March 9th, 2012. All attempts at contacting the owner have been unsuccessful by the foreclosure team and by myself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like the -- has this had any other violations besides these? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: It did. It had a weed and litter violation that has been abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: By the county, I'm sure. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Actually by the bank. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay, good. All right, anybody like to make a motion or discuss this? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 91 April 26, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. And you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I do. That Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.51 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What did you say the operational costs were? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: $80.51 . MS. BAKER: Fifty-seven cents. MR. MIESZCAK: Um-hum, six cents. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to fill in the blanks? MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation as read, with the blanks filled in, 60 days and $200 per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Page 92 April 26, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: The next case we're moving to is Number 5, Old Business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, will be Number 3, Case CESD20110001287, Sergio and Sara Garita. (Speaker was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 420 15th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio number 3701 1920003. Description of violation: Expired Collier County permits without receiving required inspections, any certificate completion/occupancy for the pool. In addition of a game room and lanai. Also, no Collier County permits obtained for the shed built in the rear yard. Past orders: On October 27th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4734, Page 2807 for more information. Page 93 April 26, 2012 The property is not in compliance with Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 26th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of$200 per day for the period between November 27th, 2011 and April 26th, 2012, 152 days, for the total amount of$30,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$81 .15 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $30,481 .15. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions, motion to impose -- MR. MIESZCAK: Make a motion to impose a fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Give it to my father. I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MIESZCAK: Hope your mother was cute. MS. BAKER: The next case is number 4 under imposition, CEPM20110001296, Sergio and Sara Garita. (Speaker was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Violation of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-231, subsection 15. Page 94 April 26, 2012 Location: 420 15th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio number 3701 1920003. Description: A green and stagnant pool not protected from the elements. Past orders: On October 27th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4734, Page 2809 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 11th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number two and four, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the period between November 11th, 2011, January 11, 2012, 62 days, for a total amount of$15,500. Order item number six: Abatement costs of$1,335.90 have not been paid. Order item number seven: Operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $16,916.76. MR. KELLY: Make a motion that we impose the fines. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? Page 95 April 26, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is under imposition, number 5, Case CESD20090000972, Maria L. Ramirez. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Eric, you're on. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22-26.B, 104.5.1.4.4. Location: 3440 35th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio number 39956600004. Description: Expired fence permit 2007-052601 without a certificate of completion. Fence construction started on property. Past orders: On November 18th, 2010 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4629, Page 250 for more information. An extension of time was granted on April 28th, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4681, Page 2033 for more information. An additional extension of time was granted on August 25th, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4718, Page 1659 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 26th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item one and two: Fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between January 23rd 2012 through April 26th, 2012, 95 days, for the total of$14,250. Fines continue to accrue. Page 96 April 26, 2012 Order item number five: Operational costs of$79.72 have been paid. Total amount to date: $14,250. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's hard to believe that an expired fence permit could run up a fine of this amount. I do remember this case. Have you had any contact with Ms. Ramirez at all? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I attempted contact yesterday and did not receive any. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I remember her being here. I think the operational costs have been paid on this. And that's really unfortunate. Our hands are tied on a case like this. But it seems quite a lot of money for an expired fence permit. Okay, anybody like to take this one on? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose the fines. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, just a comment on that. That again, once they come into compliance our department on the respondent's behalf would go to the board and ask for the fines to be waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think this might be one of those times. Page 97 April 26, 2012 Do you have a suggestion for us, Eric? Oh, this is imposed, yeah, next -- MS. BAKER: Next case is number 6, Case CEROW20090000973, Maria L. Ramirez. (Speaker was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 110, Article 2, Division 1, generally, Section 110-31 .A. Location: 3440 35th Avenue, Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio number 39956600004. Description: Expired right-of-way permit 07-0945-E. Construction debris still on the property. Driveway not complete. Past orders: On November 18th, 2010 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4629, Page 244 for more information. An extension of time was granted on April 28th, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4681, Page 2035 for more information. An additional extension of time was granted August 25th, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4718, Page 1661 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 26th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two: Fines at a rate of$200 per day for the period between January 23rd, 2012 through April 26th, 2012, 95 days, for the total of$19,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five: Operational costs of$80 have been paid. Total amount to date: $19,000. Page 98 April 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, in relation to the fact that this respondent signed a stipulation agreement on 11/18 of'10, 18 months ago, I'd like to make a motion we impose the fine as stated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thanks, Eric. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 7, Case CESD20090005007, Roxana Sorokoty Trust and Walter G. Sorokoty, Jr. Estate. (Speaker was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: This concerns violations of Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinance, Chapter 22 -- oh, for the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Article 2, Section 22-26.B-104.1 .35, Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 and 111.1 and Ordinances 04-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code as amended, Sections 10.02(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and that is a six and 10.02.06(B)(1 )(a). The location is 2435 Tamiami Trail East, Unit 9, Naples, Florida. Page 99 April 26, 2012 Folio number is 387040000. Description is a mezzanine and stairs in bays nine and 10 erected and electrical work done in the bays. Bay eight without first obtaining Collier County approval, required inspections and certificate of completion. Past orders: On January 7th, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4651, Page 570 for more information. A motion for extension of time was denied on June 23rd, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4698, Page 1333 for more information. An additional motion for extension of time was granted August 25, 2011 . See attached Order of the Board OR 4718, Page 1665 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 27th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order number one and two: Fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between October 25th, 2011 and March 27th, 2012, 155 days, for a total of$31,000. Item number five: Operational costs of$82.86 have been paid. Total amount to date is $31,000. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 100 April 26, 2012 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: The next case is number 8, CESD20090011861, Steven A. and Kelly A. Johnson. (Speaker was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Violations Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permit Section 105.1 . Location: 111 4th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio number 37224080002. Description: Permit number 900005651 expired without a C.O. Past orders: On November 18th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744, Page 1106 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 6th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order items number one and two: Fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between January 18th, 2012 and April 6th, 2012, 80 days, for the total of$12,000. Order Item number five: Operational costs of$81 .43 cents have been paid. Total amount to date: $12,000. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. Page 101 April 26, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Is that the last case? MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That brings us to -- MR. MIESZCAK: I missed the opera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we'll sing for you later. MR. MIESZCAK: The last one was opera. Number nine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, reports. Do we have any reports? MS. FLAGG: Do you want to do your workshop? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We want to do the workshop after everything or -- MS. FLAGG: Well, your agenda, the next one is workshop. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. FLAGG: Do you want to amend the agenda and we'll put that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's amend the agenda. MR. MIESZCAK: And finish it, right. I'd like to amend the Page 102 April 26, 2012 agenda and save the workshop for the end. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So we'll get you out of here sooner rather than later. MS. FLAGG: Let me just give you the report for last week, the week of April 12th, ending April 18th. As of November, 2008, the banks have expended $2.7 million to abate 2,246 code violations. And just as a reminder, the banks can abate. For instance, the case that you had, they can abate the weed violation. But if it requires a permit, they have to have a certificate of title before they can abate the internal permitting issues. And that's a building code requirement. For the week, 130 additional cases were opened. There were 149 lien searches done in that week. And of those 149, eight code cases and code violations were identified. The cases today show how important it is to do this lien search program and property inspection program. And the realty -- the realtors are doing a great job in letting their potential buyers know the importance of doing that, by evidence by the number of lien searches that were done just that week. Page 103 April 26, 2012 The Code Enforcement Department also administers all citations that are issued by various county departments, whether it's Domestic Animal Services, Parks and Rec, Sheriffs office, et cetera. And so just in that week there were 127 citations that were also processed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that brings us then to next meeting date's going to be May 24th. And we can probably -- MR. KELLY: Motion -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to adjourn and then we'll have the workshop after. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. Page 104 April 26, 2012 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:03 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 41111111■ „slog • •BE .trf A UFMAN, CHAIRMAN These mi tes approved by the Board on 0 as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 105