Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/24/2012 WMay 24, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, May 24, 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 10:57 a.m., in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Kenneth Kelly Tony Marino Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance James Lavinski Ronald Doino Larry Miesczak (Excused) Chris Hudson (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney the CEB Page 1 May 24, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, May 24, 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 Tony Marino Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance James Lavinski Ronald Doino Larry Miesczak (Excused) Chris Hudson (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Page 1 May 24, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: 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. will Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the board need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Could we have the roll call. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ronald Doino, Jr.? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Miesczak and Mr. Chris Hudson both have excused absences for today. Page 2 May 24, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And would you put down Ken Kelly for being two minutes late, please. Do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under No. 4, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, we have two additions. The first will be Case No. 9 from the agenda, Robert and Colleen Rossomando, Case CEOCC20120002338. The second will be Case No. 3 from hearings, Gracelyn Mostaccio Rue, Case CELU20110011262. Under motion for extension of time, we have one addition. It will be Matthew Arsenault and Christina Arsenault, Case CESD20110000448. Under Letter B, stipulations, the first stipulation will be No. 7 from hearings, Case CESD20120000069, Henry Rouzier and Jessica E. Lopez. The second stipulation will be No. 1 from hearings, Case CESD20110005108, Carlos Ramos. Under Letter C, hearings, No. 2, Case CESD20100007042, Kirk Sanders, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CEPM20120001592, Thu-Nhut Nguyen, has been withdrawn. Under No. 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 1, Case CESD20110000038, Olga Canova and Rebecca M. Rios, has been withdrawn. Number 3, Case CES20110006426, Carlisle/Wilson Plaza, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 5, Case CESD20110014953, Tommy Pickren, has been withdrawn. And that is all the changes I have to the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If we could get a motion to accept the agenda as modified. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. Page 3 May 24, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Approval of the minutes. If we can get a motion to approve the minutes. Are there any changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments on the minutes? MR. L'ESPERANCE: So move. MS. GERALD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That carries. Page 4 May 24, 2012 Which brings us to motions. MS. BAKER: The first motion for continuance will be No. 9 from hearings, Robert and Colleen Rossomando, Case CEOCC20120002338. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. LEFEBVRE: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Do they have -- MS. BAKER: There's a letter in your packet requesting the motion for continuance. It is under the hearing packet, and it states that the respondent will be out of state on a previously scheduled trip. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does the county have any objection to granting a continuance? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what time frame are we looking at for the continuance? MS. BAKER: The letter states a request for three weeks, so we could schedule for the June hearing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that sufficient time enough for the recuperation period? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'll have to check with the doctor. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, that's what they're asking for, so I make a motion that we continue to the June meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second by -- okay. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 5 May 24, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be No. 3 from hearings, Gracelyn Mostaccio Rue, Case CELU20110011262. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. It looks like you brought quite a crew with you today. MR. FREEMAN: Good morning. For the record, Yale Freeman appearing on behalf of the respondent, Gracie Rue, and, as co-council, Ari Good is also present before this board. We have, in fact, filed a motion for a continuance and an amendment to the request for continuance. We've met with staff and discussed it, and it would appear as if their recommendation would be that a 30-day continuance be granted. We just came onboard just a little over a week and a half ago. It looks like a matter that has been attempted to be resolved with a commitment from both sides up until this point, and we just need a little bit more time to go through this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does the county have any problem with the movement to the next meeting? MS. PEREZ: No objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions from the board? MR. KELLY: Make a motion to grant the continuance to the next meeting. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 6 May 24, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. MR. DOINO: Second over here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you. MR. FREEMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or not. MS. BAKER: The next case will be under motion for extension of time, Matthew Arsenault and Christine Arsenault, Case CESD20110000448. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And show the respondent is not present. MR. BALDWIN: No, I don't see her, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: The permit is in ready -- ready for issuance. She just needed a little more time. The shed was a small shed. It should be down this weekend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any problem with extending this time? MR. BALDWIN: I don't have any objections, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how much time was Page 7 May 24, 2012 requested; one month? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: The letter actually says 45 days. MR. BALDWIN: Oh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: Sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would be two months. So go to 60 days. Do we have a motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many days, Mr. Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Forty-five is stated in their memo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, which would move it to our second meeting coming up. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second from Mr. Doino. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Page 8 May 24, 2012 MS. BAKER: The next case is No. 7 from the agenda under stipulations, Case CESD20120000069, Henry Rouzier and Jessica E. Lopez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we continue, I neglected to say that since we are short members, that Mr. Doino will be a voting member for this meeting. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit and request inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using the methods -- using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. LOPEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name for the record is? MS. LOPEZ: Jessica Lopez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you understand the stipulation and agree to the terms of that stipulation? MS. LOPEZ: Yes. Page 9 May 24, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And 180 days should be sufficient time for you to get everything done? MS. LOPEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion from the board. Any discussion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be No. 1 from the agenda, Case CESD20110005108, Carlos Ramos. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. CONDOMINA: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Page 10 May 24, 2012 permits or demolition permits, 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 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. Ramos, could you give your name for the record. MR. RAMOS: My name is Carlo Ramos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And do you understand the stipulation that you've agreed to? MR. RAMOS: Yes, sir, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have no problem with the time frame? MR. RAMOS: No problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. Do we have -- MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 11 May 24, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Ramos. MR. CONDOMINA: Thank you. MR. RAMOS: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be under Letter C, hearings, No. 4, Case CEPM20120003266, Integrity First CR Services. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231, Subsections 9, 11, 12i, 12p, and 20. Description of violation: Exposed wires, no smoke detectors, hole in ceiling and walls, and broken windows. Location/address where violation exists: 2221 Golden Gate Boulevard West, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 36912040009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Integrity First CR Services, care of registered agent, Leandro Feliz, 4100 Corporal Square, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: March 2, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 2, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 1, 2012. Date of reinspection: April 11, 2012. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. MR. AMBACH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 12 May 24, 2012 I'd now like to present case evidence of the following exhibits: Seven photographs taken July 28, 2010, and one photograph taken May 23, 2012. All photographs taken by myself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion to accept the photos? MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. This case initiated after the observation of what appeared to be a vacant home with a front door unsecured. While at the front entrance of the home, I smelled what appeared to be a strong odor of marijuana. I contacted the Collier County Sheriffs Department, who met me at the property and confirmed the home was a marijuana grow house. While on site, I observed crude electrical alterations, holes in the ceiling and walls, missing smoke detectors throughout the home, and broken windows. A notice of violation was sent to the property owner. And due to Page 13 May 24, 2012 pre-foreclosure, this case was sent to our foreclosure specialist as well. A few weeks later I did observe the broken front window had been secured with a board; however, I was unable at the time to determine if any other issues were addressed on the inside. After no response from the bank or the bank -- from the owner or the bank, excuse me, I rechecked the clerk's website and observed the home had been sold in a short sale. I served a new notice of violation to the current owner, and after no response to the notice and failed attempts to locate the owner, this case was prepared for today's hearing. As of today, the violations continue to exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KELLY: I have a question. So is the Integrity First CR Services, in fact, the owner then or the -- MR. AMBACH: They are -- MR. KELLY: -- agent for the owner? MR. AMBACH: They are the owner. Now, I served -- they were local. I went to the office. I posted a courtesy copy at the office. I always do my postings on the property of the courthouse, as we're supposed to, but I always try, if they're local, to go over and knock on the door. I did speak with a woman that said that she hasn't seen him in that office for quite some time. Tried to find him through the web. Failed attempts, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: When was this first observed, this violation? MR. AMBACH: It was back in 2010. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was this a police case at the time? MR. AMBACH: It was a patrol by myself. I stumbled across it, and then I contacted the Sheriffs Department. They came out and confirmed that it was, in fact, a grow house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 14 May 24, 2012 MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation exists. MS. GERALD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is one of two cases, as I see. MR. AMBACH: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: Would you like to hear the recommendation on this? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. AMBACH: The county recommends 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 obtaining a Collier County boarding certificate within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 2, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of Page 15 May 24, 2012 completion/occupancy for the unpermitted alterations and repairs of unsecured openings within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 3, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to fill in the blanks on the board? Hearing none, I will attempt to fill in the blanks. The 81.43 to be paid within 30 days, 60 days to take care of all the violations, to bring it into compliance, and $500-a-day fine thereafter. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion; we have a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Now we go to the second case. MS. RAWSON: Can I ask you one question about your order, Page 16 ......... .... ..... . May 24, 2012 sir? Is that 60 days for each of the things he recommended or 60 days for everything? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty days for everything. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. MR. KELLY: I have a question about procedures, Jean. In small board situations, the chairman usually is allowed to make motions. On larger-board situations, they are not. Is there anything in our rules that prevents Mr. Kaufman from doing that? MS. RAWSON: There's nothing in the rules. We're going to talk about the rules today. You can bring that up, but there's nothing in it now. MR. KELLY: I have no problem with it; I just want to make sure that there's no issues down the road -- MS. RAWSON: I understand. MR. KELLY: -- loophole that a respondent could use against us. MS. RAWSON: Very good item for discussion at our workshop. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I actually have looked that up in Robert's Rules, and it does provide it, unless you go against Robert's Rules. MR. KELLY: No pun intended, Mr. Robert Kaufman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Trouble maker. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20120003258, violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 2007 Florida Building Code Chapter V, Section 424.2.17. Description of violation: Expired pool permit and no protective barrier around the pool. Location/address where violation exists: 2221 Golden Gate Boulevard West, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 369120400009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Integrity First CR Service, care of Leandro Feliz, 4100 Page 17 May 24, 2012 Corporal Square, No. 135, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: September 22, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 2, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 1, 2011. Date of reinspection: April 11, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph taken July 28, 2010, and a second photograph taken yesterday, the 23rd of May 2012. All photographs were taken by myself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a motion to accept it? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. AMBACH: Again, this case initiated as a patrol for an unsecured structure. It was determined by the Sheriffs Department to be a marijuana grow house. Page 18 May 24, 2012 And after the site visit, I determined that the pool on site was not permitted, and it does not have the safety barrier around it. Now, you'll notice from the photos that at some point in the pool's life, it popped up out of the ground. This is an in-ground pool. That's concrete that you're looking at there. But because the construction was never finished, it was never filled, it's been compromised, and it's popped itself back up, out. Again, the notice of violation was sent to the property owner, and due to pre-foreclosure, it was sent to the foreclosure specialist. No response from the bank or the owner, and then the property was sold to the current owner. A new notice of violation was issued to the current owner and no response as of today. The violation remains. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a couple questions. This pool does not have water in it? MR. AMBACH: I can't determine if it has water or not at this point. I don't have the right to walk around the back of the house. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can we tell if it's completely covered on the top? MR. AMBACH: Even an aerial photograph would not show a complete coverage, because the new aerial photographs haven't come out yet. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So we don't know if it's covered? MR. AMBACH: It is covered, but I don't know if it's compromised at this point. It has a visqueen plastic covering, and that's metal -- that they normally do for, you know, the HUD standards. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this far from another residence? MR. AMBACH: I have one residence to the left of that house. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this yard fenced in? MR. AMBACH: It's not fenced in, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 19 May 24, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: This has been going on -- the question I have is, this has been going on for nearly two years, correct? MR. AMBACH: It has. MR. LEFEBVRE: The previous statement of violation actually had, I think, the wrong date when it was first observed. It said May 12, I think, 2012. But this, for two years to go on unprotected, it seems like a long time. We've dealt with cases before where there's been -- the structure of the pool has been compromised, that it's been an open barrier, and we give a very short time frame usually, and usually those cases come to us pretty quickly, due to the fact that a kid can fall into the pool and so forth. So I think that there is, in fact, a violation. So I make a motion that there's a violation, and we should have a very short time frame to have this corrected. MR. KELLY: Second the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and we have a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You have a recommendation? MR. AMBACH: I do. The Code Enforcement Department asks the Code Enforcement Board -- orders the respondent to pay all Page 20 May 24, 2012 operational costs in the amount of$81 .15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we have your recommendation we could see on the screen? Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, Mr. Lefebvre, you said you wanted to put a short time on this. Do you have a recommendation? MR. LEFEBVRE: I sure do. $81.15 within 30 days, and let's stick with $500 per day and 15 days to correct, to abate. MR. KELLY: I'll second that one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. MR. MARINO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 21 May 24, 2012 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Chris. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be Number 8, Case CESD20100007624, Juan H. and Ana Perez Huapilla. And we do have an interpreter for this case. (The interpreter was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English to the best of his ability.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20100007624, violation of ordinance, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: House that has an addition attached. Location/address where violation exists: 804 Jefferson Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida, 34142; Folio 63854400000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Mr. Juan H. Huapilla and Ana Perez Huapilla, 804 Jefferson Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Date violation first observed: August 27, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: April 15, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 8, 2011. Date of reinspection: January 18, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WALKER: Good morning. For the record, Weldon J. Walker, Jr., Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present as exhibit of evidence four photos and a property ID card. Page 22 May 24, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those photos? MR. WALKER: No, he hasn't. I could show him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you could show him the photos. We'd like you to look at the photos and see if you have any objection to them being presented as evidence. MR. HUAPILLA: Yes. This is my house here. I agree to everything he's telling me. The problem now is that I am not working. I have no money. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll get to that. Let the county -- the county will present, and then we'll come back. Okay. Do we have a motion to accept the photos in evidence? MR. KELLY: So moved. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept and a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. WALKER: This case was initiated as a complaint in 6 -- 06 -- June 2, 2010. The complaint referenced multiple additions on property, including an illegal shed. Page 23 May 24, 2012 On June 7, 2010, I observed a house that appeared to have an addition attached and a porch-over attached to the house. I requested the property card and determined upon further research of the old handwritten permit books, the first computer system program, Whips, and the computer programming system, CD Plus, that two permits were recorded for the property. One was an '83 permit for a slab which received a CO, and the other was a 1991 re-roof permit which received its CO. There is no permits for the addition or roofover, and it is recorded -- and is recorded on the property card as being picked up in 1985. I have met with the property owner and his son on several occasions in our office to discuss the violation and abatement. Now, the property owner took steps to abate by acquiring a demo permit, which was issued on June 10, 2011, but expired June 12 -- I mean, December 12 -- excuse me -- December 13, 2011. Property owner is an agricultural worker and travels to work. As of today, the addition, as well as the porch-over, remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you tell me if that's occupied at this time? MR. WALKER: Yes. He actually lives in the residence. The attached addition is used as storage. It has electric in it and plumbing, because they have washers and dryers there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: No interior photographs? MR. WALKER: No, no. I was never allowed in and -- or when I did go there, there was no one present. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have we seen all the photos? Okay. Similar. Okay. Any questions of the respondent? MR. KELLY: I had a question actually for Collier County. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Page 24 May 24, 2012 MR. KELLY: Investigator Walker? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: You said that in 1985 something was picked up? MR. WALKER: What happened, on the property appraiser's website -- or on the property ID card, if you look at it, it shows that there was an addition that was recorded in 1985. The actual permit that existed was for a 1983 slab. That slab was CO'ed. From the time that slab was CO'ed until 1985, that slab ceased from being a slab to the addition that we have there now. MR. KELLY: And those permits and comments about a slab are all referring to addition work, not the original home, correct? MR. WALKER: Exactly. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you. I'd just -- the reason why I'm asking is because the original NOV cited a house with additions without permits, including the house. So I'm just clarifying. So it's not the original house. It's just the additions that's a violation? MR. WALKER: That's correct. MR. KELLY: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. HUAPILLA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name for the record. MR. HUAPILLA: Juan Huapilla. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you've heard what the county has to say? MR. HUAPILLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And could you tell us your situation? MR. HUAPILLA: This is my house. When I bought the house, it was like this. I did not add anything. When he showed up to let me know what was going on, I spoke to the owner, and I explained to him what was going on, and he didn't Page 25 May 24, 2012 want to fix it. I'm here today to know -- I mean, I would like you to tell me what does he want me to do. When he sent me the warning first, he wanted me to take this off, all this, all this. He said -- he said he didn't get in the house. Indeed, he never got in the house, but somebody else from there got into the house. Do they have permit to get in the house? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sure the answer to that is no, not without his permission. MR. HUAPILLA: But they got in the house -- they got in the house. Okay. I want them to tell me what do I need to take down. This is -- this is the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like that's the -- from the property appraiser, that's the diagram of the structure. MR. HUAPILLA: Yeah, this is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to -- do you want to enter that as evidence? MR. HUAPILLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HUAPILLA: Yes, I would -- because I would like him to tell me what needs to be taken down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept it. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept that diagram as evidence. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 26 May 24, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HUAPILLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, you won't get that piece of paper back, but that's available, I know, on the website to be printed at any time. MR. MARINO: Who is he -- excuse me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. HUAPILLA: I would like to know. MR. LEFEBVRE: Excuse me. Who is he referring to when he says they entered the house? Is he talking about the county? Who's he talking about? MR. HUAPILLA: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know who in the county entered the house? MR. HUAPILLA: The one who gives the permits. I asked him to go and he didn't go. He didn't want to. The other person was the one who got in. That's why the other person showed up. The house is 40 years old, and they're going to realize that it has that addition. I, myself, did not do anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did you purchase the house? MR. HUAPILLA: Ten years ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So around 2002? MR. HUAPILLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HUAPILLA: Yes, 2002. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the county has the numbers that go back to 1985. Okay. This is -- is this the diagram from the property appraiser's website? Page 27 May 24, 2012 MR. HUAPILLA: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Investigator, can you tell me the section that was the slab originally and now has the addition? MR. WALKER: Yes. Where it says SP40/300, that red or pink highlighted section there that's 20 by 15, that's the actual slab section. MR. HUAPILLA: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the other section that is in pink or red in the front of the house? MR. HUAPILLA: That particular section is not the one cited. It's the side on the white section that says 16/5. That front section, and the -- the front section actually appeared, as we could tell, as my discussion with the permit tech, that was there with the house. The front -- the front -- or that rear slab and that side section roofover, which could be discerned by the photos and the property appraiser's card, appeared in 1985. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think for the board we have to find out if a violation exists. If it does exist, then we can work on the remedy. MR. LEFEBVRE: So just to be clear, the only part that we're talking about is the 16-by-5 white section; is that correct? MR. WALKER: Actually, it's the 16-by-5 white section, and the 16-by-5 -- the 20-by-15 section. That's the actual addition. The slab was the foundation that was CO'ed. On top of the slab they created the addition, which was cited as a shed when I investigated it. Once I investigated, it was that addition on the rear. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the 20-by-15 and the 16-by-5 -- MR. WALKER: Exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- section, are two sections -- MR. WALKER: The 16-by-5 section is the roofover, which is attached to the addition in the rear and the side of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The slab exists in both sections? MR. WALKER: Yes. Page 28 May 24, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Yes? MR. KELLY: So if those two sections are what's listed on the notice of violation and they had a permit at one time with a slab that received a CO, and the gentleman stated that it is used as a cover-over and just a storage area, is it possible that he could render those acceptable to 1985 standards, since that's when they were built, as storage, not necessarily necessitating demo permit or demolition of them? MR. WALKER: I mean, that could be quite possible. That would be something that I would rather defer to the people who handle permitting that can determine that -- MR. KELLY: Of course. MR. WALKER: -- or ascertain that. MR. KELLY: Of course. It's just the respondent is asking, what do I need to tear down, and he did receive a demo permit which has since expired. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think we need to find either it's a violation or it's not first, then we can go into that discussion. MR. KELLY: Sure. That's true, that's true. Yeah, we'll hold that. MR. MARINO: I have a question. The SP40/300, the 20-by-15 building, what is that used for? MR. WALKER: There is -- from what I understand, it's a laundry room. There's washers and dryers in there, which means that there's also electric and plumbing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Now, "washers, dryers," more than one washer; more than one dryer? MR. WALKER: That's what I was told. Again, I didn't actually physically go in the structure because I wasn't allowed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we have the respondent here who could answer that question. Can you tell us what you have in that 20-by-15 structure? What's inside? Page 29 May 24, 2012 MR. HUAPILLA: My washer, the dryer, and that's it, and my stuff. My -- I mean, things from my wife. I mean, the table -- that are located on the table, and that's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. MARINO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second; take your choice. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. We've gotten past -- it is a violation. Now what can be done, which is the question you asked earlier, to resolve the situation? Mr. Kelly, did you want to make a comment now? MR. KELLY: Just to finish. My only point is, if the respondent is asking what he needs to demo and there is an option to possibly keep this as a storage shed, maybe we let him know at this point that that is an option; just needs further investigation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would ask the question, if the electrical and the plumbing was inspected, either by affidavit or whatever, is it possible that that could remain, and then pull a permit Page 30 May 24, 2012 on the entire unit? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think that is a possibility. It has to be brought up with the proper department in the county, however. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think that's a possibility. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent been working with you to try to resolve this, or -- MR. WALKER: Actually, at times it's been rather difficult to maintain contact with him. Again, he works agricultural work. I have worked -- I have had phone conversations with his son, who actually kind of translates for his father. Again, we did sit down with him and the permitting tech and discussed with him his options. And it was his choice at that time to select the option that he chose based on his feeling of financial requirements. So I don't -- I'm not -- I don't see where he wasn't informed, but he, of course, has the opportunity to do whatever we recommend if that's what he wants to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you aware of anybody entering the building without his permission? MR. WALKER: No, the only -- I never entered in the facility. I think when he had talked to the permit tech, she at that point went there and kind of tried to see what she could do to assist him because, again, I didn't get access. But I don't know what transpired from there, because she began to work with him with regards to what his options would be. And at that point it was between him and her to determine what he needed to do, and he chose the course that he chose to demo it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And have you had any contact with that permitting person to find out what would be possible to do? MR. WALKER: I would rather defer to her. Again, I know that she recommended, of course, to demo it or attempt to permit it. I Page 31 May 24, 2012 think what she said to me was the concern of his was the cost, would it cost to actually permit it any other way other than just to remove it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you remember somebody coming out from the building department trying to work with you to see what needed to be done to bring the addition into compliance? MR. HUAPILLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And do you have the contact information from that person? MR. HUAPILLA: No, no, because he explained to me that things were to be arranged with him because he was the one who executed the inspection. Okay. MR. KELLY: Recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a recommendation? MR. WALKER: Yes, I do, sir. Code Enforcement Board orders that the respondent pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits and inspections and certificate of completions within days to be determined of this hearing and a fine set, to be determined, will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of 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 take a stab at that? Page 32 May 24, 2012 MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. KELLY: Do you mind if I poll the respondent even though we've closed it just to see what -- a time frame in his mind may be? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. KELLY: Sir, you may have the option to keep that addition and use it like it is, but it may cost a little money to get a permit and a licensed contractor or engineer to approve it. We're going to set a time frame to allow you to do that work. My question is, how long do you think it would take to get up the money to comply? MR. HUAPILLA: I would like to have a year in order to fix the problem, tear it down, and according to what I'm told, to be -- if I can finish that before, if I get the money before, I'll do it. MR. KELLY: It's important to understand that whatever time frame we set today, if it's not met, fines will go against the property and could cost much more. MR. HUAPILLA: I'm going to tear it down. I'm going to tear it down. MR. KELLY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you need -- you're saying that you need a year to tear it down? MR. HUAPILLA: Yes. In that period of time, I will tear down. MR. KELLY: I know this has been there for a long time, but I'm not comfortable with a year. It's just too long, you know, and in a year he could come for an extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On top of that, from board discussion, there's electrical and plumbing in there that hasn't been looked at by anyone -- MR. KELLY: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to see if it's safe or not. How many people live in that structure? Page 33 May 24, 2012 MR. HUAPILLA: Five; my wife and my children. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: How many bedrooms in the home? MR. HUAPILLA: Two. MR. KELLY: Normally we would do maybe three months here in these type of situations, maybe less. I'd be okay with six months, to compromise. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to take a stab at the MR. KELLY: Well, I'd like to poll the board first. I don't know how everyone feels. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I was at 270 days, so nine months. That's what I have written down. MR. KELLY: Okay, good. Nine months would probably be better then. Go ahead, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that $80.29 be paid within 30 days; 270 days, so nine months, roughly, to correct the problem, or a fine of$150 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The $150 is after the 270 days should you not be in compliance at that time. MR. KELLY: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 34 May 24, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. We are not saying that you have to take it down. We're saying that it has to come into compliance. So if you can work with the building department to get into compliance, that is one of your options. If you can't or if that costs too much money, then you'd have to pull it down. And you have nine months to get that work done. MR. HUAPILLA: Okay. I'm going to try to fix it. I'm going to look for the means in order to -- I will try to keep it there, but if not, then I'll take it down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, very good. MR. LEFEBVRE: Please try to work with the investigator and have open communication with him. If you could, keep him up to date on what you're doing, because if you do not -- if you do not finish it in 270 days and you come back in front of us and you ask for more time, if you show good faith in trying to fix the problem, we might be inclined to give you an extension. Entiendo? MR. HUAPILLA: That's fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Muchas gracias. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Inspector Walters. MS. BAKER: The next case will be under No. 5 (sic), old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines, liens. And it's number -- excuse me -- No. 2, Case CESD20110006100, Harry E. Montz. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. SCAVONE: Good morning. For the record, Michelle Scavone, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Page 35 May 24, 2012 This case is in reference to violations, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1). Location: 2547 Barrett Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112; Folio No. 81730640005. Description of the past orders: Extension of roof over the carport and front door area. On August 25, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4718, Page 1677, for more information. An extension of time was granted on January 19, 2012. See the attached order of the board, OR4760, Page 554, for more information. The property -- the property is now in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 23rd. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$200 per day for a period between March 21, 2012, and May 23, 2012, 64 days, for a total of$12,800. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.29 have been paid. The total amount to date is $12,800. During the prehearing inspection, it showed that the violation is now abated, and the county recommends full abatement of fines, as case is in compliance and operational costs have been paid. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 36 May 24, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is No. 4 under imposition of fines, Case CESD20100003214, Marvin and Donna Schroeder. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. CONDOMINA: Violations: Florida Building Code, 2007 edition -- oh, for the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1 and Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Location: 3801 21st Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 38050720001. Description: No Collier County permits for construction of two structures appearing to be a garage and a barn. Past orders: On February 24, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4656, Page 2345, for more information. And an extension of time was granted on November 18, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4744, Page 1091, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 24, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period Page 37 May 24, 2012 between April 16, 2012, and May -- through May 24 2012, 39 days, for the total of$5,850. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.29 have been paid. Total amount to date 5,800 -- $5,850. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to impose. MR. L'ESPERANCE: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Danny. MR. CONDOMINA: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case will be No. 6 under imposition, Case CEPM20100018316, Michael Bonelli. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, building and building regulations, Article VI, Section 22-231, Subsection 15. Violation location is 935 Fountain Run, Naples, Florida, 34119; Page 38 May 24, 2012 Folio No. 33160001123. Violation description is a swimming pool that was not being maintained. Past order on November 18, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4692, Page 294, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 4, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 3, fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between December 19, 2010, to January 4, 2011, totaling 17 days for the total fine amount of$2,550. Order Item No. 7, operational costs of$80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $2,630.57. The county recommends abatement of$2,550 and daily fines, as the case is in compliance, and operational costs of$80.57 will be imposed as a lien. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was this brought into compliance by the county or by the respondent? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe -- this property is in foreclosure. It was brought into compliance by the bank. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Wow. Okay. MR. KELLY: It shows our task force is working. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. KELLY: Make a motion that we impose the lien amount of $80.57. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 39 May 24, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case is No. 7 under imposition of fines, Case CESD2010000913 5, Opera Naples, Inc. MR. MARINO: I'm going to have to excuse myself from this one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Marino has a previous appointment. MS. BAKER: Conflict. MR. LEFEBVRE: Conflict. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Conflict. He has a previous conflict. MR. L'ESPERANCE: An existing conflict. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's existing. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCAVONE: For the record again, Michelle Scavone, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This case is in reference to violations, Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22-26(b)(104.5.1 .4.4), Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1, and Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 2408 Linwood Avenue, Naples, Florida; Folio 61631160002. Page 40 May 24, 2012 Description: Alterations of building consisting of but not limited to electrical, adding and removing the interior walls, adding and widening of door jams without first obtaining Collier County building permits. Past orders: On August 25, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4718, Page 2022, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board as of May 24, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$200 per day for the periods between February 22nd and May -- I'm going to back up there -- for the periods between February 22, 2012, and May 24, 2012, 93 days, for a total of$18,600. Fines continue to accrue. The Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have been paid to -- total amount to date, $18,600. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir, if you can state your name for the record. MR. KNAFO: For the record, my name is James Knafo. I am the principal architect at James Knafo, Incorporated, located at 649 5th Avenue South in downtown Naples. I was retained by Opera Naples on May 9th to lend a professional voice to this discussion and to facilitate the correction of the stated violations to further guide them in their efforts to alter their facility at 2408 Linwood Avenue into a code-compliant state. Can you please share those with the board? MS. RAWSON: He has brought some exhibits which he'd like for you to look at. So that would be up to you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to rehear the case, so Page 41 May 24, 2012 MR. KNAFO: This is in terms of moving forward and resolution of the stated violations that I would like to share. MR. KELLY: Could I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. KELLY: Maybe as you advise your clients, maybe we could advise you on our procedure. MR. KNAFO: Sure. MR. KELLY: We usually do requests for continuances, motions for extension of time and so forth, at the beginning of our meetings. At this particular point we're being presented by the county with a fact, and we have to either say yes or no. It's one of those up/down vote times. We can't go back and rehear or change anything. However, if the county wishes to withdraw this this month and next month you were to appear in front of with us an extension of time, we could hear that. And we might -- in fact, now that there's professional representation, we might, in fact, entertain that. MS. BAKER: You do have the authority to grant the extension of time today. You can hear his side of it, and if you -- the board chooses to do that, you may do that today instead of bringing it back next month. We have done that many times. MR. KELLY: Excellent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I don't know that it's necessary to read all that. My questions of you would be, what is it going to take to bring this into compliance? That's what we're all about. MR. KNAFO: Ninety days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It would take ninety days to bring it into compliance. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to extend for 90 days from today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Page 42 May 24, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, I do have some discussion. They had up until -- they actually knew this back in August of last year, that they had six months to come into compliance. Now we have the architect coming to us saying that he was retained May 9th, nearly two months after -- nearly two-and-a-half months or so after the February 22nd date. I really -- it's imperative, if we do grant this extension, that they have it done in 90 days, because coming back to me, and wait -- for them to wait this long. We grant an extension, and it's from the time of this hearing, not from the time of when they should have been in compliance. So, actually, they'll have nearly six months more time. They should have retained you much sooner. And it -- if an extension is granted, 90 days, I will not be one to grant another extension. It better be done in 90 days, or I'm -- I just really feel that waiting this -- almost two-and-a-half months later to retain somebody isn't the way that it should have been done. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I just wanted to hear your comment on Mr. Lefebvre's. MR. KNAFO: Code enforcement has been extremely patient and understanding with Opera Naples. The only way to explain why they have not been able to move forward to this point has been that their efforts at fundraising have been extremely unsuccessful. What's changed is that the severity and the seriousness of where they are now has been recognized by members of the community, and they've agreed to step forward and help. That's why I can stand in front of you and say that we will resolve this in 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's fine, but that should have been conveyed to code enforcement so that could have been conveyed to us. And I know that's not under -- I mean, I know you can't speak for them in that regard, but just -- if an extension is granted, I would not Page 43 May 24, 2012 be one to grant an extension above -- anything past 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in touch with -- MR. KNAFO: Ms. Scavone? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. KNAFO: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with us granting an extension? MS. SCAVONE: The county does not have any problems. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll call the question. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: (Abstained.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously (sic). MR. KNAFO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shows that Mr. Marino is -- MS. BAKER: I believe Mr. Lavinski voted no. MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. I voted no on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear. Okay. Okay. Hopefully at 90 days it will all be resolved. MR. KNAFO: You won't see me again. MS. BAKER: The next case will be No. 8 under imposition, Case CESD20090007697, Timothy Beebe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to take a break now before we hear this one? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're okay? Are you okay? Page 44 May 24, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: We have one more case then? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One more case, then we'll take a break. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. BAKER: If we are going to take a break, can we take a different case, because we do have the interpreter here, and we would like to let him leave, if possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you'd like to modify the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion to modify the agenda? MR. KELLY: Which case? MS. BAKER: It would be No. 11 under imposition of fines. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to modify the agenda. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: The next case will be No. 11, Case CESD20110007333, Erineldo Mosquera and Eddy Lunar. (The interpreter was duly sworn to translate from English to Page 45 May 24, 2012 Spanish and Spanish to English to the best of his ability.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Quick question for the interpreter. Are we going too fast or about the right speed? THE INTERPRETER: You were fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: It was just before then, the last part of the previous case that -- when he read the final, it was really, like, very fast. But that was -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'll try to pace myself also. For the record, once again, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in violation of Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and the Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1. The violation location is 4191 18th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio No. 35766920004. Violation description: Permits 2004080292 for a fence, 2004112551 for a shed, 2006023718 for a garage conversion, and 2006023732 for an enclosed porch that all have expired permits without completing all inspections and receiving certificate of completion or occupancy. Past order: On September 22, 2011, Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4728, Page 875, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 24, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Item No. 2 and 4, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between Page 46 May 24, 2012 March 22 (sic), 2012, and May 24, 2012, totaling 65 days, for the total amount of$13,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 7, operational costs of$80 have been paid. Total amount to date, $13,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a question. MR. MARINO: Is that March 21st or March 22nd? MR. LETOURNEAU: I've got -- for the -- March 21, 2012, to May 24, 2012. MR. MARINO: I thought he said 22nd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. For the record, could each person identify themselves. MR. MOSQUERA: I was here in court, and I told you that the property was in foreclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you. Just your name, and your name. MR. MOSQUERA: Okay. Erineldo Mosquera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. LUNAR: Eddy Lunar. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you, gracias. Yes, I do remember that you were here. And what -- the house, you said, is in foreclosure? Is there anything else that you want to tell the board? MR. MOSQUERA: I'm still in foreclosure. I am -- I'm working with a couple attorneys. The attorneys are telling me that everything's going on very well. They are negotiating with the bank. And I expect to have good news, to fix everything concerning the house, I mean, all the -- the problems concerning the permits. We are a little low in money, short. I requested attention (sic) here, because I was expecting that the foreclosure issue was going to be taken care of, but the banks have some issues. And I don't know why. But if we -- if the problem -- if the issue -- I'm sorry. If the issue with the foreclosure is resolved and if we keep our house, we will agree in resolving all the problems to avoid coming back here Page 47 May 24, 2012 again. We are elder person. We don't like to come to court for things that can be resolved. And if these things can be resolved, we will do so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the board? MR. KELLY: If I have to be the bad guy in this situation, unfortunately, we're presented with what we're presented. There's no extension that was asked for. But in this case, maybe the bank seeing a lien against the property may help expedite the foreclosure proceedings in their favor, and they get to either modify or maybe reduce or something. So I hate to say it, but that might be the best course of action here. And then down the road, if they do, in fact, retain possession of the property, we can talk about maybe an extension, or they can work directly with the County Attorney's Office to get it rectified. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does the -- has the county been working this issue with the foreclosure team? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. Our foreclosure team normally doesn't really get involved with occupied properties. So they haven't been involved in this case at all. MR. LEFEBVRE: Once we impose the fines, then it's out of our hands, correct? It would have to go to the commission. MS. BAKER: Yes. MS. FLAGG: The way it would work is, if you -- I think Mr. Kelly's making the point that the bank is -- gets really interested to help when there's a lien. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. FLAGG: At the point that, let's say, the bank does resolve it with the property owner, then at that point we would go to the Board of County Commissioners on their behalf and ask that the fines be waived. Page 48 May 24, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. With that being said, I make a motion to impose the fines. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. We believe that what we have done will help your position with the bank. When the bank sees these numbers, they will probably be more likely to come to some resolution with you. If they do, the county will go to the next level up on your behalf to try to abate the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Once the fine is -- once the violation's abated, they will go to the County Commissioners on your behalf. But you would have to abate the problem before, okay. Does that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yep. Thank you very much. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. MOSQUERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Bye, now. Okay. We're going to take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Code Enforcement Board is back in session, and we're up to the next case. MS. BAKER: The next case is No. 8 under imposition, Case CESD20090007697, Timothy Beebe. Page 49 May 24, 2012 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: Again, for the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1, and Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22-26(B) (104.1.3.5). Location: 245 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples Florida, 34120; Folio No. 37743840008. Description: Open sides with metal-roofed type structure and attached deck/dock pilings all built without Collier County permits. Past orders: On October 27, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the board, OR4734, Page 2823, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 24, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between April 26, 2012, and May 24, 2012, 29 days, for the total of $4,350. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$81.72 have been paid. Total amount to date, $4,350. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any discussion? Page 50 May 24, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: The next case is No. 9, Case CESD20110012249, Kenneth T. Jenkins and Aundrea Jenkins. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: This is in reference to the violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 260 Weber Boulevard South, Naples Florida, 34117; Folio No. 36760921008. Description: Pool permit expired without receiving a certificate of completion/occupancy, and no permits on file for the screen -- the pool screen enclosure, excuse me. Past orders: On January 19, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4760, Page 63 -- 632 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 24, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period Page 51 May 24, 2012 between March 21, 2012, and May 24, 2012, 65 days, for the total of $9,750. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $9,830.57. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Quick question. Have you been in contact with these folks at all? MR. AMBACH: There's been no contact with these people at all. This was a -- it was not a foreclosure. I was trying to -- when it started, there was a real estate agent that was working to help, and I was speaking to the wife. The two don't talk to each other, and I guess what he told me was she wasn't going to do it, he wasn't going to do it, so nobody was going to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Chris. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case is No. 10, Case CEVR20110016570, Lonny Moore Trust Estate and Morrison Living Trust. Page 52 May 24, 2012 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This was a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08(C). Violation location was 120 7th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37161440006. The violation description is presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation including, but not limited to, Brazilian pepper. Past order: On March 22, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4784, Page 1839, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 24, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between April 22, 2012, and May 24, 2012, totaling 33 days, for the total fine amount of$3,300. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.57 have not been paid. Total fine amount to date: $3,380.57. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Do we have a motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 53 May 24, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously, thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is No. 12, Case CESD20110009942, Aura Rodulfo. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This was a violation of Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location of the violation: 2390 Markley Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 337440003. Violation description: A horse stable/barn with unpermitted electric and plumbing. Past order: January 19, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4760, Page 565, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 29, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between March 21, 2012, and March 29, 2012, totaling nine days, for a total of$900. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have been paid. Page 54 May 24, 2012 Total amount to date, $900. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as case is in compliance and operational costs have been paid. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. MARINO: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're welcome. MR. MARINO: That's what I said. MS. BAKER: The next case is No. 13, Case CESD20110014484, James A. and Barbara A. White. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location is 3150 36th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 41718160000. Description: Addition made to the front of the principal structure Page 55 May 24, 2012 without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On February 23, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4772, Page 1325, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 24, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between April 24, 2012, through May 24, 2012, 31 days, for a total of $4,650. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $4,730.86. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case is No. 14, Case Page 56 May 24, 2012 CEPM20120001359, Irma Arrendondo. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, once again, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Original violation: Collier County laws of-- excuse me -- Collier County laws and ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(2). Violation location: 1948 45th Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio No. 35749440006. Violation description is dwelling being occupied without water. Past order: On March 22, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4786, Page 3373, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 24, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$500 per day for the period between March 26, 2012, and May 24, 2012, totaling 60 days, for the total of$30,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $30,080. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. One quick question I have on this. Is this unoccupied? MR. LETOURNEAU: It is occupied. I believe possible squatters at this point. It's in foreclosure, and -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: What options do we have? Page 57 May 24, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought we did that, when this was imposed, that we would use the Sheriffs Office to clear it out. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not sure why we haven't done that yet. I guess we can. We've never really evicted people as of yet, but I guess that's an option we can look into. MS. FLAGG: The challenge is you have to get the property owner's permission to enter unless you get a court order, but we can review that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would like to pursue that possibility if they are squatters, if they don't have the owner's permission to be there, if they're not paying rent. This is a health and welfare issue, in my mind. So if we could pursue that possibility, that would be something the board would -- MR. LETOURNEAU: We will. Finding the owner is going to be the hard part. I'm not sure if we've ever spoken to her or where she's located at this time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I concur. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MARINO: If you can't find the owner, can you still get a court order? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. MARINO: How long does it take for a court order? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, it depends on what court we -- you know -- MR. MARINO: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- we've never done this before, so I can't really say. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to have this expedited if possible. MR. KELLY: Can the health department step in and do that? MS. FLAGG: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I'm completely mystified by squatters. If somebody moves into your house when you're on Page 58 May 24, 2012 vacation, they have a right to be there, and you have to go to the court to get them thrown out? MS. FLAGG: Again, the property owner of record is the one who owns the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All righty. Well, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that the last case? Oh, boy. Next meeting is -- before we get to the -- so I don't forget, the next meeting is June 28th. Reports? Do we -- I guess we have nothing to forward to the County Attorney's Office? MS. FLAGG: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a report? MS. FLAGG: We do. For the week ending May 16th, the banks have expended $2,783,000 to abate 2,262 code violations. For that week alone, we had 157 new cases opened. And as we've talked before, a new case is opened if we receive a complaint and/or if it's a vacant property. In that week there were 517 property inspections; 59 cases were Page 59 May 24, 2012 closed due to compliance; 48 cases have had bankruptcy filed. Our bankruptcy filings have significantly increased in Collier County. There were, in that week, 144 lien searches completed, and of those 144, five of those did identify for the potential buyer that there were code issues on the property. So, as you know, those lien searches are invaluable to a potential buyer because they know exactly what they're dealing with before they go into the property. Also, wanted to let you know that June 1st, the code district supervisors will be rotating to go a new district. And so during the month of May, they've been doing transitions. So the current district supervisor has been taking the new district supervisor to their -- all their meetings through this month, their homeowners' association meetings, civic association, task force meetings. They've been introducing them. They've been becoming familiar with the issues in that district, and then effective June 1st, they will all rotate one district. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. As a realtor, the -- it's good to hear that you picked up five cases that we probably won't be hearing here. Because I know I see them all the time, and I'm sure my fellow realtors and brokers also are seeing the same thing. It really helps. It's the best $25 you can spend; better than termites. Termites will only eat your house. If you get finished with the fines, they could take your house. Okay. Well, I guess that brings us up to -- are we going to adjourn the meeting and then start the workshop? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 60 May 24, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The meeting is adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:56 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD so, R o ERT'KA WAN, CHAIRMAN These inutes approved by the Board o anzA j,D.,. as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 61