Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/28/2012 R June 28, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, June 28, 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 at Growth Management Division Conference Room 609/610, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre Larry Mieszcak Kenneth Kelly (Excused) James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Excused) ALTERNATES: Ron Doino Chris Hudson ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. The Code Enforcement Board is now in session. 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 Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence which the appeal is to be based on. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And we'll start with the roll call. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Ronald Doino, Jr.? MR. DOINO: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And today since we are missing two members, the alternates will be voting members today. Page 2 June 28, 2012 MS. BAKER: Yes. And Mr. Kelly and Mr. Marino both have excused absences. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So Chris and Ron, you both will be voting members. Okay. Do we have any agenda changes? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. The first will be under letter A, motions. Under motion for extension of time, we have two additions. Number two under extension of time will be number 10 from imposition of fines, Eagles Bond Investments, Case CESD20110005082. Number three under motion for extension of time will be number three, moved from imposition of fines, James and Julia Askey, Case No CESD20100008859. Under letter C, hearings, number two, Case CESD20110006729, Jason Nardella, has been withdrawn. Number five, Case CESD20100007042, Kirk Sanders, has been withdrawn. Number seven, Case CESD20110017156, Ronnie G. and Beverly J. Bishop, has been withdrawn. Number 10, Case CESD20110003387, Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. Which brings us to approval of the minutes from the May 24th Meeting. Do we have any additional changes or motion to accept? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 3 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, now we go into motions. And the first one is Paul and Cathleen Burcky. MR. RICHARDS: Richards. That would be me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: Paul and Cathleen Burcky is the first case. MR. RICHARDS: Excuse me? MS. BAKER: Paul and Cathleen Burcky is the motion for continuance. MR. RICHARDS: I thought you said Paul and Jacqueline. MS. BAKER: No, Paul and Cathleen Burcky. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, sorry. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a request here, I read the letter, for a 60-day extension on this case. This is the second extension that's been requested for 60 days. Do you have any comments or suggestions on this? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: For the record, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. This morning I spoke with Mr. Burcky, and he is -- he is in the last step of the process. He needs to submit an inspection card and he needs to obtain that from his architect. And unfortunately his architect Page 4 June 28, 2012 is out of town for the next few weeks or so on family emergency. But I've been working with Mr. Burcky. He has been trying to abate the violation, and he's been pretty good to work with. So I don't have a problem with the extension of time. Unfortunately a couple -- an issue came up with his home, he had to spend some additional money re-roofing his house, so that kind of put him behind a little bit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have no problem with granting an extension of time? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, not at all. No, he's been great to work with. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion of an extension of 60 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion is granted. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next case is Jose Casarez. (Investigator Rodriguez and Jose Casarez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you let us know what your thoughts on this particular case are. And you can give us your request why you need an extension. Page 5 June 28, 2012 MR. CASAREZ: First of all, I just started work again in June. I have been laid off since January. And I have not been financially able to come up with some material to do some of the stuff I'm doing. But we've got the trailer down that was behind it, it's completely down, it's only just the floor now. And I showed it to her, she came by to see it. And other than being financially not able to finish, I need an extension so I can get the materials I need to finish. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a couple of questions. My first question would be for the county. Has the $80.29 been paid? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Yes, it has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I did notice that this goes back a ways. There was a 90-day extension of time back in February, and the past order was due on 5/23. You requested the extension on 5/25. So let me hear from the county what their suggestion is or what their feeling is on this. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: We have no objection. He has both permits that have been applied. The demolition for the removal of one of the mobile homes, which he pretty much has gotten rid of and the second mobile home, which is the double-wide, the permit is ready to be issued. We're just ready for the C.O. because they won't give one without the other. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think that you can complete everything in what period of time? MR. CASAREZ: Right now because of my financial status, situation, I probably need till June so I can take everything out of there and get the other one ready. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Being that this is June, you're saying a year? MR. CASAREZ: No, six months, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? Page 6 June 28, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: I mean, first of all, you requested 120 days, now you're talking about six months? MR. CASAREZ: Yes, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: So you're changing what you -- MR. CASAREZ: Right. Because after talking and trying to figure out everything that I need, I'm going to need more time, because I'm the only one working and I just started working here in June. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay, thank you. I'll make a motion, 180 days extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. HUDSON: Second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to interject a question here. You say 180 days and he's requesting six months. That's going to be what date? Do we need to be specific about the date or not? MR. LEFEBVRE: You could do 180 days from today. MR. CASAREZ: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that your motion? MR. MIESZCAK: That should have been my motion to be exact. No time though, just the days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion and we have a second. Any other questions on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 7 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MR. CASAREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next case will be Eagles Bond Investments, Incorporated. Case 22 in our tab. (Mr. Roy Bond and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Bond? MR. BOND: Yes, good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Please let us know what the situation is. MR. BOND: My problem is only just getting the permit basically. And we're in the process of getting that. As a mobile home we have been -- we can't do anything ourselves, we must acquire a mobile home installer to do it to get the license, which we have done three times. But they never followed through and give us the C.O. and that's what -- we have the same goal that the county does, the code -- Mr. Baldwin and I have. It's just a matter of the timing involved and getting -- now that we have to start from scratch. We've had it extended twice before, the permit, but it was renewed each time. And this time our planner tells us that we have to start from scratch. And that's what we've done. It's currently before the Planning Commission now; part of it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Baldwin? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. He appears to be willing to take care of this. It's been going on for quite some time, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We were given quite a lengthy explanation this morning. I don't know that anybody on the Board has even had time to read it all. But how much time are you requesting? MR. BOND: Well, initially as soon as we have the permits we Page 8 June 28, 2012 will immediately, assuming the inspectors are willing, to have one of the inspectors come in and inspect it so we know where we're at then for certain. I want this finished, we want this finished and we want it done properly. I want to be there at each step and see what the contractors -- what they've doing. But I want to know what they have to do. Because I don't want to go through this again. But once we know then what the inspectors tell us, I think it's completed. But I don't know. I've been told it's completed. Some of it I can see where it probably has some work that has to be done to it. But I'm no expert, and I rely upon the inspectors to tell us what we need. But then I can tell you a time. It won't be very long. But normally a new contract from scratch has six months. And we've had to get new engineering reports; everything starts from scratch instead of just renewing it. And that's any holdup we've had. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it's a little difficult for the Board to say okay, we'll give you what you're asking for when you're not sure what you're asking for right now. MR. BOND: I agree with you. But I'm honest, I don't, I mean, you know, six months' a normal contract for a new building permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Baldwin, would six months be acceptable to the county? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: County has no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any questions from the Board, or motions? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I guess -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I make a motion -- excuse me, go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Is this a removal of a mobile home, is that what it is? MR. BOND: No, sir, it's an installation. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the mobile home's already there correct? MR. BOND: Pardon me? MR. LEFEBVRE: The mobile home's already there? Page 9 June 28, 2012 MR. BOND: Yeah, it's already there. It's almost -- I mean, it needs the C.O. on it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think six months is a long time. Is it currently being lived in? MR. BOND: It's -- currently we have 30 acres there. And we right there -- not -- we have people on guard there all the time. MR. LEFEBVRE: The question is, is it occupied? MR. BOND: It is occupied, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Six months I think is excessive. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other questions from the Board, or motions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The reason that I tend to agree with Mr. Lefebvre, if it hasn't been inspected how do we know it's safe from an electrical perspective or from a plumbing perspective? MR. BOND: There has been inspections on it. A lot of the inspections are already on it, if we look at some of the material that was submitted there. There has been -- the septic's complete, the well's complete. I mean, it's all basically there. There never has been -- the certificate that -- I have learned mobile home installers are supposed to put on it on the back. And since they pulled the permit, they're the ones that get the Certificate of Occupancy. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we grant an extension for 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to extend it 90 days. Naturally, after 90 days or prior to the 90 days, should this motion pass, you have the opportunity to come back and give us a progress report or request additional time, et cetera. I just want to make that clear. All those in favor of the motion -- you have a question? MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah comment and I'd like to ask a question. Page 10 June 28, 2012 So in other words, we're giving a 90-day extension on something that's not C.O.'d, correct? MR. BOND: Understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I'm certainly against that. Thank you. I mean, somebody's living in a property that's unsafe. How do we know what it looks like? And yeah, I see all these permits here, but who did the inspections? So I'm not in favor of this, just to let you know. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess a follow-up question: What permits are still outstanding, and what's holding you up from getting that? Or what inspections are still outstanding and what's holding you up from MR. BOND: Well, they haven't been finalized. That's the thing. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand. But what -- MR. BOND: All of them basically -- not all of them, but they -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The final electric, the final AC, the final mechanical and the final building and the final septic have not been finalized on the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: So there's like five, four or five. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: In your opinion, is 90 days sufficient to do this? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: In your opinion, do you see any roadblocks to that happening? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: There are always roadblocks. You know, things always come up. I don't know, I can't give you an honest answer on that, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: No red flags that are obvious in your mind right now? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No. Page 11 June 28, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, all in favor of the 90-day extension, say aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Bond, you have 90 days to -- (phone interruption) -- answer your phone and to get the C.O. MR. BOND: Good time for that. Everything else is falling apart. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You understand the Board has granted you 90 days to get it done, and should you have a problem getting it done in 90 days, prior to the 90 days I would expect that you would come back to the Board and request. And at that time I would suggest that you have some sense of what has been done, you know, four of the permits have been completed, I'm waiting for one, or maybe they're all done, in which case we won't see you. Okay? MR. BOND: Okay, I sincerely appreciate the Board's assistance, help. I'm surprised we're even here. But we're going to get this straight. I don't think it's even going to take 90 days, if we can just get a permit. But that's in the third-party's hands, I don't know that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. BOND: Thank you, and thank the Board. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. Page 12 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This brings us to James Askey and Julia Askey. Are they here? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: They're not. (Investigator Short was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we received this this morning, and I just want to briefly go through it. This was originally scheduled for imposition of fines because the property was not in compliance. Why don't you give us your take on this case. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. The trailer has been demolished and removed from the property. However, no demolition permit was obtained. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. In all likelihood this will probably be in compliance now, should they have a permit. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Right. To this time -- I mean at this time no permits have been applied for, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. To get a permit of this type probably could be done in a couple of days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Has all the debris been removed? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It has. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Have you been at the site to verify this? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I have. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: This case has been going on since August, 2011, so I think that's quite an excessive time. I make a motion that we deny the extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. MR. DOINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second by Mr. Doino. I have one comment. This thing -- again, what Mr. Lefebvre said, I went back to 60-day extension, 180-day extension. We've been Page 13 June 28, 2012 here too long on this one. And I'm sure that over the past year they have known that they had to obtain a building permit. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It was addressed on the order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion to deny this request and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. HUDSON: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And one opposed, Chris. Okay. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we'll hear this, the imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Under imposition of fines. We're in the hearings now. Jen, I'll wait for you to let us know where we're going to start. MS. BAKER: The first case will be number one, Case CEOCC20120002338, Robert E. and Colleen Rossomando. (Mr. and Mrs. Robert Rossomando and Supervisor Jeff Letoumeau were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Description of violation: Operating an inn-type lodging business in an Estates zoned district. Location/address where violation exists: 4641 Fifth Avenue Page 14 June 28, 2012 Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 36661320009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Robert E. and Colleen Rossomando, 4641 Fifth Avenue Northwest, Naples Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: February 15th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 9th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 9th, 2012. Date of re-inspection: April 30th, 2012. Results of re-inspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Letourneau? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to start out by handing in some case evidence in the following exhibits: Four printed pages of websites, four pages of Land Development Code and definitions, and three pages of an email I received from County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow. I did show this to Mr. Perlow this morning. I think he might have some objection on a part of it. MR. PERLOW: Yes, I have to strongly object to the email. That's not what's called competent substantial evidence, that's an opinion from the attorney and that's conversations going back and forth between the attorney and Mr. Letourneau. It's just not evidence. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Actually, it was a request for legal services from Mr. Klatzkow that I asked him in an email to make a determine on if this was a -- this particular activity was a violation. And I got his answer back on that email right there. MR. PERLOW: It is still not factual evidence presented at a hearing. He's offering an opinion as an attorney for Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's offering an opinion as the county's attorney. Page 15 June 28, 2012 Jean, do you have any problem with what Klatzkow has written? MS. RAWSON: We've allowed evidence like that in before from the County Attorney's opinions, you know, on more than one occasion. Not only the County Attorney, a couple of times from other people in code enforcement you've allowed evidence in about people's opinion. MR. LEFEBVRE: The building department specifically. MS. RAWSON: Yes. And I know that Mr. Klatzkow is not here; however, credible hearsay is permissible. MR. PERLOW: Well, I think that violates Mr. Rossomando's fundamental due process. I can't cross-examine that opinion. I can't question him at all. He mentions in here this is a possible prohibited use. There are statements in here. I can't question him on this document if he is not here. And that does violate Mr. Rossomando's due process rights. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you bring the mic closer to you, please. MR. PERLOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, do you have comments on this? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: This is common practice. We have determinations from various parts of the county at all times on code cases. Zoning, building department, county attorney, we request their legal advice on violations all the time and we go forward with cases on his opinion a lot of times. I don't agree, I think that his opinion does matter. He is the County Attorney, and part of his job is to make decisions on whether something is a violation or not. MR. PERLOW: But the bottom line is he's offering testimony that I can't cross-examine. And it's being accepted on the face of the letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this is based on the past precedent. I would tend to accept the email, and should you disagree you have the means to file an appeal based on our interpretation. Page 16 June 28, 2012 MR. PERLOW: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, I have a question. You have seen this whole package? MR. PERLOW: I did. I saw it this morning for the first time, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we accept this package in its entirety. MR. PERLOW: And I would object to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Unfortunately you're not on the Board, so we have a motion to accept the package as written. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. HUDSON: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One opposed. Okay, so the package is accepted. And obviously I haven't seen this package yet either. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay, I'd like to start out by the actual website that you can go on. The first one is bedandbreakfast.com, as you can see. If you go down to the bottom one you see, A Dream Come True Home. I believe that is the advertisement for this particular property. And then you have the view website. And when you click on that you Page 17 June 28, 2012 come to the second page, which has the home page, A Dream Come True. It basically tells you, you know, what a nice facility this is, everything else. Then if you click on rooms, you know, view rooms, you come to that third page which shows three bedrooms, I believe, that are being rented out. You have mom's room, grandma's room and Lady Di's room. As you can see there's rates available on this website. And the third page shows you the services; it's a typical bed and breakfast, it looks like. You stay for the night, you come down and get your bed and breakfast -- you get your breakfast at the kitchen table. So that's -- I'm just trying to establish that there is this activity going on on this property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: The next part of the packet would be the ordinances I took out of the Land Development Code. The first ordinance would be 2.02.03, prohibited uses. I just want to really stress that that's the ordinance that I am claiming there is a violation of. And I'm going to read it here: Any use or structure not specifically identified in the zoning district as a permitted use, conditional use or accessory use shall be prohibited in such zoning districts. That's what I'm here today for you guys to make a decision on, that and that alone. As you go down the page I also put a definition of motel/hotel, which states: A building or group of buildings offering transient lodging accommodations normally on a daily rate to the general public with or without accessory uses such as restaurants, meeting rooms or recreational facilities. I want to just say daily rate is what I'm trying to get at right there, which I believe that they're charging at this facility. I couldn't find a transient definition in the Land Development Code, so I put the next one in there, which was destination Page 18 June 28, 2012 resort/hotel, and I believe I highlighted the first sentence right there which says: A transient lodging facility, i.e. less than six months occupancy. That's what I could find in the LDC as far as transient lodging. The next section I put in was just for reference was residential tourist district. Now, if you scroll down to permitted uses, you'll see the first one is hotels and motels. That is a permitted use in that zoning district, allowable as a permitted use. The next one I put in was the whole Estates district. I put in the permitted, the accessory and the conditional uses. And as you can see if you overlook the whole thing, hotels and motels are not part of the Estates zoned district as far as any kind of use out there. All right, any questions so far? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: None from me. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Good. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay. I'd like to move on to Mr. Klatzkow's email. This email was something I sent to him because I just wanted to confirm with the County Attorney that what I was saying in my Notice of Violation was an actual violation. So I wrote him a long -- it's called a Request for Legal Services, which I wanted his opinion on this violation. I highlighted -- if you go down to the middle of that first page, my first question was: I am requesting the County Attorney Office to determine if this type of transient lodging or hotel use is allowed in this -- that I referenced, residential single-family and Estates districts. If you scroll down a little further, the first thing he says is: In answer to your question -- he restates the prohibited use, which I cited on the Notice of Violation. Which it's not a permitted accessory or conditional use in this zoning district. Now, if you move on to the -- then he also quotes the residential zoning district in between there which also states that there's no hotel Page 19 June 28, 2012 or motel as a use in that type of zoning district. After you get done with that, he has a little spiel on the third page stating: Renting one's home in the manner described in your request for legal service is a transient rental use. This use is not authorized in residential zoning districts or the Estates. Other districts such as certain commercial districts, the residential tourist district and many PUD's specifically authorize this use. That does not mean one cannot rent out one's home for a single-family resident use. Typically such rentals are in excess of six months. Accordingly, in answer to your questions -- and my first question was: I'm requesting the County Attorney's Office to determine if this type of transient lodging or hotel use is allowed in these types of neighborhoods. Not authorized. Pretty clear right there. I also went on, I just wanted to know if it was authorized, if he did say that, if they needed a home occupational license, but it was pretty moot at that point that they just can't do it, so there's no sense even getting into that. Okay, the original case was opened on February 14th. I did get a complaint through the zoning department. I'm not really sure how it came in, but somebody from the zoning department sent me an email saying they had a complaint about this particular property. I'm not sure who -- you know, if it was a neighbor, competitor, or what it was. So after extensive research, we did serve Mr. Rossomando a Notice of Violation. Because it was -- in the beginning it was a little vague about, you know, the period of time that you can rent one's house out. Because obviously there are people that rent rooms out in residential districts. And from what I can gather with transient and Mr. Klatzkow's opinion, it looks like six months is pretty much the least amount of time that you can rent out a piece of property without it becoming a transient use and we're getting into the hotel/motel use at that point. Page 20 June 28, 2012 That's pretty much it, if you don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question. I know on certain rentals certain tax has to be paid to the county. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have any taxes on this particular property been paid to the county? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I do believe that they were paying a tourist tax. MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes, we were. We have a tax I.D. number and we've been paying the tax on a monthly basis, both to the county and the state. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that's my question. Any other questions from the Board of the county? (No response.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Before I hand it over, I just want to just reiterate, we're just here to make a determination -- or ask you guys to make a determination whether this is a use that's allowed in the Estates zoned district. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, good morning. MR. PERLOW: May I inquire? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Why don't you give us your testimony first and then you can go back and forth with questions. Correct, Jean? MR. PERLOW: I would like to cross-examine -- MS. RAWSON: No, I think he cross-examines him first. MR. PERLOW: -- based upon what was testified to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. PERLOW: Mr. Letourneau, where in 2.03.02 does it state you can rent in excess of six months? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It doesn't state it in the prohibitive ordinance. Page 21 June 28, 2012 MR. PERLOW: Well, then it's a prohibitive use, isn't it, to rent at all? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It would be pretty much impossible to label every activity in the Land Development Code. It could say breathing is allowed in the Estates, it could say, you know, whatever. I mean, it's going to be hard to go over everything that's allowed, so they pinpoint exactly what's allowed in a certain zoning district. MR. PERLOW: This opinion states that six months would be okay, correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It does. MR. PERLOW: But it doesn't say in 2.03.02 that six months is okay; isn't that correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: That is correct. MR. PERLOW: And it also doesn't say in that section that three nights or four nights or five nights is prohibited; isn't that correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: That is correct. MR. PERLOW: So you're randomly, correct me if I'm wrong, establishing six-month cut-off; isn't that correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: That is not correct. MR. PERLOW: Well, it doesn't say in the code that it's six months. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It says in a certain definition I gave that transient i.e. is six months or less. MR. PERLOW: But you're basing it strictly on 2.03.02; isn't that correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: No, that's what I cited the gentleman with. I'm not basing it solely on that ordinance. MR. PERLOW: When was the property first inspected? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: The property -- I've only been onto the property twice. I've never inspected to see if there was anybody coming in and out of there. I do believe that I had Mr. Page 22 June 28, 2012 Rossomando state that they were doing what they had advertised on the website. MR. PERLOW: Well, it says, does it not, that on February 15th, 2012 the violation was first observed? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It was first observed on the website. MR. PERLOW: It wasn't observed on premises? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: No, it was not. MR. PERLOW: Have the premises ever been gone to by you or someone from your office? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I've been to the premises. MR. PERLOW: And have you seen rentals taking place? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I have not. MR. PERLOW: When was the reinspection done? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: The reinspection was done on the website, once again. I went to the website and it was still up, advertising for daily rentals. MR. PERLOW: So everything was based upon the website and that's it? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Yes. And Mr. Rossomando I believe at one point told me that they were doing it. MR. PERLOW: If Mr. Rossomando were to rent to somebody for 30 days, would that be a violation of 2.03.02? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Yes. MR. PERLOW: How about 60 days, would that be a violation? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I'm just basing it off the transient lodging which is -- and the County Attorney's opinion. I believe anything less than six months would probably be a violation at this point. MR. PERLOW: So anybody renting to anyone in Naples for under six months is in violation? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Depending on what zoning Page 23 June 28, 2012 district they're in. There's a lot of variables, obviously. MR. PERLOW: Well, if you're in an Estates zone, anybody under six months, you'd be in violation; isn't that correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: According to this County Attorney's opinion, yes, I think at that point you could say it's transient lodging. MR. PERLOW: And looking at this letter from the County Attorney where he states 2.03.02 residential zoning districts, in A he's referencing RS-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Do any of those districts apply in this case? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Are you talking about 2.0 -- you're talking about residential zoning districts on this email right here, is that what you're -- MR. PERLOW: Yes. Yes, please. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: No, the Estates is not included in that particular grouping of zoning. MR. PERLOW: So anything in those zoning districts would also be a violation if they were under six months; is that your opinion? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Yes. MR. PERLOW: Also in this email it states, or you testified rather, that this might be a transient lodging or hotel; is that correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. PERLOW: Are you aware of the statutory definition in the State of Florida for a hotel? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: No, I'm not. MR. PERLOW: You're not aware of Section 5.09.242 that defines a hotel as 25 or more guests? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. PERLOW: You're not aware of that? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I am not. MR. PERLOW: So would you agree that Mr. Rossomando is not operating a transient type hotel, assuming what I just told you is Page 24 June 28, 2012 correct about the Florida statutory definition? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I would probably agree that the hotel reference prob -- he doesn't have a hotel; he's got transient lodging though. MR. PERLOW: But he doesn't have a hotel? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I guess if that's the state definition, I would agree that he doesn't have a hotel. MR. PERLOW: But you would also testify that anything under six months, five months is transient lodging? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: In Estates and residential zoning. MR. PERLOW: Even though that's not in Section 2.03.02 or in the Collier County Enforcement Code; is that correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It's not in the prohibited use. MR. PERLOW: I have nothing further. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you finished asking? MR. PERLOW: I'm finished with that examination, yes, please. May I question Mr. Rossomando? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. PERLOW: Mr. Rossomando, how long have you lived on these premises? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Since 2003. MR. PERLOW: And did you build the home? MR. ROSSOMANDO: We built the home. MR. PERLOW: And at some point did you go to zoning and make an inquiry regarding whether or not you could rent rooms in your home? MR. ROSSOMANDO: I did. MR. PERLOW: And where did you go? MR. ROSSOMANDO: I went to zoning. I asked them whether I can rent rooms short-term and they said yes. MR. PERLOW: And when was that? Page 25 June 28, 2012 MR. ROSSOMANDO: That was -- I'm not sure, 2004, 2005 when we started thinking about doing this. MR. PERLOW: And after receiving that reply, did you at some point start renting rooms? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes. MR. PERLOW: And when was that? MR. ROSSOMANDO: 2007. MR. PERLOW: And did you go to someone at some point and ask about taxes and paying taxes? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes. We weren't aware at first that we needed to pay taxes and were contacted by the tax people in 2009. We paid the current taxes and all back taxes and have been paying currently. MR. PERLOW: Prior to being issued this citation, had you had prior contacts with the code enforcement? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes. MR. PERLOW: And when were those contacts? MR. ROSSOMANDO: The last two years. MR. PERLOW: Would you explain what those contacts entailed? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Well, in the past people have -- code enforcement has come to the house, talked to me, talked to my guests. At one time there was confusion that I was renting my guesthouse. I have a guesthouse on the property, my mother-in-law lives there. Another time they talked to my guests and went back and said that renting my bedrooms was a permitted use and I can continue. MR. PERLOW: Were you ever given a citation before this? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Not a citation. In this case no one came to the house to talk to us. Code Enforcement came to the house to deliver a cease and desist order. MR. PERLOW: So you're not aware of any inspection actually taking place on premises? Page 26 June 28, 2012 MR. ROSSOMANDO: No. My mother-in-law did say she saw a car parked in my driveway and look at her house through binoculars. MR. PERLOW: Do you consider what you're operating to be a hotel? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No. MR. PERLOW: What's the difference between your residence and your rentals and a hotel? MR. ROSSOMANDO: There are a number of differences. One, the number of rooms as stated, we only have three rooms. We don't perform a number of services that a hotel performs. We don't have a 24-hour front desk. We don't have concierge service. We don't accept credit cards. We -- the place closes when we go on vacation. We don't have any employees, it's just my wife and I that run it. MR. PERLOW: Did you at some point look at the code to determine what the prohibited uses were in the Estate district area? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes, I did. MR. PERLOW: What did you do find? MR. ROSSOMANDO: I found that paragraph D of the Estates code is a prohibited use paragraph. And it states that the permitted uses are as follows, and it only lists the training and bating of fighting animals. MR. PERLOW: And you didn't see anything in there about rentals or rental of rooms? MR. ROSSOMANDO: The code is silent on renting of rooms. As Mr. Perlow said, it doesn't say we can rent rooms. Code is silent on renting, period. Doesn't say we can rent the whole house, part of the house, for long-term, short-term, anything. And renting is one of the incomes in this county where people buy residences just to rent. So I don't think it was the intention of the code to eliminate renting. MR. PERLOW: How long have you been paying taxes on your rentals? Page 27 June 28, 2012 MR. ROSSOMANDO: Since 2009. MR. PERLOW: And this was after speaking to the representatives that you were supposed to be paying the taxes? MR. ROSSOMANDO: That's correct. MR. PERLOW: And you state you have four rooms? MR. ROSSOMANDO: We have -- the house is a four-bedroom house. We live in one of the bedrooms; we rent out the three other bedrooms. MR. PERLOW: Explain to the board why you became involved in doing this and why you're presently doing it. MR. ROSSOMANDO: Whenever we traveled we loved staying in these types of houses. There's a friendship, there's a knowledge the owners have and we just enjoy doing this. MR. PERLOW: I have nothing further -- MR. ROSSOMANDO: No, I wanted to go on. MR. PERLOW: Go ahead, what else did you want? Excuse me for one moment, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. PERLOW: We want to address the issue of home occupation. Would you please explain to the Board what you want to talk about and how you're living in the house and how you're renting out the rooms and how that affects your view of what a home occupation is? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Section 5.02.01 talks about home occupations. And it says it's allowable on any zone which permits residential dwellings must be conducted by the owner. Can't have signs, no excess traffic, no excess delivery of goods. And I believe the renting of my spare bedrooms in my house meets this requirement. MR. PERLOW: Do you have any signs in front of your house? MR. ROSSOMANDO: There are no signs. MR. PERLOW: There's no sign for a bed and breakfast in front Page 28 June 28, 2012 of your house? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No. MR. PERLOW: How many are the most amount of cars you have parked in your yard at one time? MR. ROSSOMANDO: A maximum of three cars. MR. PERLOW: Do you consider yourself occupying or renting a rooming house? MR. ROSSOMANDO: It can be considered a rooming house. According to the definition paragraph, Section 22.257 defines a rooming house as a residential dwelling which rents space to non-family members. MR. PERLOW: And in renting this rooming house, this is one of the reasons you realized you had to pay taxes; isn't that correct? MR. ROSSOMANDO: That's correct. The Tourist Tax Code defines -- lists a rooming house as one of the types of dwellings that need to pay their transient tax. So it seems that it was intended for a rooming house type property to be a permitted use. MR. PERLOW: Is there anything else you want to address with the Board today as far as why you're renting these rooms and why you believed initially you were able to do so? MR. ROSSOMANDO: I think it's a win/win for everyone involved. Colleen and I enjoy doing this. Our guests enjoy our home, enjoy Collier County activities. Collier County gets increased tourist taxes. Collier County businesses get increased business. Most of our guests don't like staying in hotels. They prefer this type of lodging. Therefore, they will go -- if it's not allowed in Collier County, they will go to Lee County which offers these types of lodging. Real estate sales could increase, because a lot of our guests are looking to buy. If they stay here, they'll buy here. For these reasons I believe we are in compliance with the current ordinances and we should be allowed to continue to operate. Page 29 June 28, 2012 MR. PERLOW: Nothing further of Mr. Rossomando. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any other witnesses? MR. PERLOW: No. But I would like to briefly address the Board in closing, if permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. PERLOW: Estates District E does not list renting rooms as a prohibited use. If you look closely at the code, it's not prohibited. Under the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 5.02.03, under home occupations, what the Rossomandos are doing is not a prohibited use. According to the testimony that's been offered here today, and we're focusing on 2.03.02, if it doesn't say in there you can rent, then you can't rent. Except you can rent, according to the testimony, if it's six months or more. If you're going to rely strictly on the statute, I don't -- or this code, I don't know how you can cut off the time period at six months. That's being done randomly here. So again, according to the testimony offered here today, anybody in the City of Naples that rents their condo or their house for under six months is in violation. That would result in thousands and thousands of violations. Why is that? Because today we're trying to establish the cut-off at six months. That's not what the code says. The code is silent on it. If the code intended there not to be any rentals, there would be language in there to that effect. Otherwise what we're saying here is we're going to interject in this code section a six-month limit where you have to rent for at least six months or you can't rent to anyone. That's what's being offered here today. I have nothing further. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any questions of the respondent? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I do. Mr. Rossomando, do you have any inspections done by any Page 30 June 28, 2012 government entity for this type of establishment? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No, I don't. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: So nobody comes in to make sure everything's safe? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Would you consider this a business venture? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: But you did quote the home occupation ordinance; is that correct? MR. ROSSOMANDO: That's correct. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: They quoted some of the home occupation ordinance, but they didn't quote Section C, which states: The use shall not generate more traffic than would be associated with the allowable residential use. To that end, traveling to and from, as well as meeting or parking at the residence by either employees of the business operated therefrom who are not residing at the subject address or by customers or clients of the home occupation is prohibited. That statement right there says you can't have people coming over for any kind of business activities. You're making money on these people. To me that's a business. Do you have a home occupational license? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No, I don't. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay. I want to go right back to the Estates district one more time here. The beginning statement, it gives you the whole purpose of the Estates, which is basically: The purpose and intent of the Estates district is to provide lands for low density residential development in a semi-rural to rural environment with limited agricultural activities. That's it. Doesn't say anything about, you know, tourists or -- you can call it what you want, it might not be a hotel, but it's definitely Page 31 June 28, 2012 a hotel type use because you're having daily rates going on. They specifically put hotel/motels, that type of transient lodging in certain zoning districts and purposely left that out of the Estates and residential districts, because they do not want that allowed in those type of districts. It could be changed down the road if somebody petitioned the commissioners and they agree to it. But at this point I don't think it's -- I don't think just because it's not in there doesn't mean it's allowed. Because they purposely put it into other zoning districts. That's all I have. MR. PERLOW: My only response to that is to argue that this is a hotel/motel type lodging is ridiculous. It's not a hotel, it's not a motel. It's a couple, a family that are renting a few rooms here and there. It's not a hotel. It doesn't even meet the statutory definition of a hotel. And I think it's -- again, it's ludicrous to argue that this is a hotel or a motel. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: And they are running this business, allowing people into their house, no inspections done by state, county, federal; no safety precautions whatsoever have been determined by any government agency for this type of use. MR. PERLOW: And if I may address that, anyone who rents their condo for a month at a time, because the condo laws and bylaws approve of that kind of action, they're not having it inspected either. So there aren't inspectors running around Naples inspecting all the time for a month or two-month occupancies. MR. LEFEBVRE: But here's the difference: He's serving food. He's doing more than someone as an owner would be renting a unit. An owner renting a unit is not physically on premise renting a unit operating a business, per se. That's the distinct difference. Now, I'm not sure if this is the proper violation. I think the violation that might be more appropriate would be lack of having a home occupancy license. That would be my feeling. And I think it would be very difficult to get that home occupancy license. Page 32 June 28, 2012 MR. PERLOW: Home occupation? MR. LEFEBVRE: Home occupational license, thank you. But I think that's the distinct difference here is someone that owns a condo renting it out for three months, for season or whatever, is not physically there making them -- making food and so forth. MR. PERLOW: Well, if that's the case, if the Rossomandos stop severing a light breakfast, which is all they do, would that bring them in compliance? Because I'm sure they'd be willing to do that. Then we're back to the same question -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the other difference -- MR. PERLOW: -- about the time, the six months, one month, one week, two weeks. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other difference too is you're not having multiple -- typically you're not having multiple unrelated parties coming into that particular home. And also the owners are not on-site -- are not sharing the same residence when you're renting it out for three months. So there's a lot of distinct differences between what they're doing and what someone as an individual if I owned a condo renting it out for three months. There's huge differences between what they're doing. MR. PERLOW: But there are people that rent out rooms in their condos. They own the condo, they rent out a second room to somebody. They've living there with them. So that does occur. MR. LEFEBVRE: But that's usually for a longer term and usually they're not there every morning making breakfast, making -- MR. PERLOW: The problem is -- MR. LEFEBVRE: And they're not advertising it as a bed and breakfast. They're -- MR. PERLOW: The difficulty is and the problem is when we start talking about longer terms, shorter terms, we're subjectively saying what that term is. We're saying that six months is okay but three months isn't. It's not in here. Page 33 June 28, 2012 So if you're citing 2.03.02, and that's what we're here for today, there's no time constraint within that code provision. So what you're saying, okay, if it was six months we wouldn't even be here today because he would be in compliance with 2.03.02; is that what we're saying? MR. LEFEBVRE: We're saying also, the home occupancy says that you're not supposed to increase traffic. Well, you're obviously increasing traffic because it was -- hold on, I'm not finished. If it's just he and his wife, that would be two cars. Now you're bringing in three other bedrooms with three other cars. If you're a family and have two or three kids, a lot of times you'll be traveling with your kids, so there will be less trips. It says not to increase trips. There's a lot of things. I'm thinking that this might be the wrong -- you might be quoting the wrong violation where it might be a home occupancy. MR. PERLOW: And I'll just -- and I don't want to belabor the point but on the cars, Mr. and Mrs. Rossomando keep their cars in the garage when the guests are there. So at all times there's no more than three cars, you know, in the driveway. MR. LEFEBVRE: It doesn't say three cars in the driveway, it says more trips. And obviously if you're bringing people in -- he stated that they're going out to businesses within the county, they're going to restaurants, they're going here, they're going there. That's increasing the trips versus if it's just he and his wife. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to close the public hearing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. MR. HUDSON: I'd still like to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we can still talk. MR. MIESZCAK: After your -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, all those in favor of closing Page 34 June 28, 2012 the public hearing, say aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the public hearing is closed. Chris? MR. HUDSON: One, I would just like to say I think I agree with Mr. Lefebvre, I think this is probably a home occupancy license issue. Second, I don't think this is the venue, I think we're heading in dangerous water if we're going to talk about a precedent. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, you're talking very fast. MR. HUDSON: Sony. Again, I agree with Mr. Lefebvre, I think that this is a home occupancy issue. I think that in general this is going to head into dangerous waters, talking about a precedent. I really wish the County Attorney was here. That's why I objected to having the evidence admitted. I think that we are talking about things -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Slow down, Chris. MR. HUDSON: Sony. I think that we are talking about things in general terms. We have one definition over here, we have a definition over here. I think that there's two really good cases here. I wish that the County Attorney was here to sort of answer what he said in his email. I'd also like to say in general, I am that person who travels around the state because of what I do for a profession. And I might stay in a Page 35 June 28, 2012 home for one night, three days, four days, a month, two months. And I can tell you that if it's not in this code, it should be. We should label out the actual number. And I think that this side has a case there, because I can tell you I've stayed in tons of counties all over this state where I show up, I pay cash, I stay and I'm out the door, because I don't like to stay in a hotel, I don't like to stay in a motel, I like to stay in a home. It's a disappointment that I think that Mr. Letourneau is right about the zoning, particularly here in this case. And that's why I wish the County Attorney was here. So that's where I wanted to state my opinion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one I had scribbled down here. If you're a real estate person, a one-man show, if you will, and you're a broker and you want to have an office in your house, you don't have a bunch of agents coming to your house, you have to apply for an occupation license. And I agree with Chris and with Mr. Lefebvre regarding that, that's required. It's unfortunate, I think, that taxes have been paid. So you would have thought that this would have come up before. But it hasn't. So that confuses the issue to Mr. Hudson's point. They're paying taxes, which is the government almost sanctioning what's going on. I also agree that this may be above our pay grade to decide. We're not here to write the LDC, we're only here to interpret those portions that come before us, whether they're in violation or not. I agree, it is not a hotel, based on what has been presented here. However, it is a bed and breakfast, as anybody would attest to. So those are my two cents, for whatever they're worth. Jean, do you have any comments regarding the legality of that particular statute of the LDC that's stated? Page 36 June 28, 2012 MS. RAWSON: Your job is to decide whether or not a code violation exists. The code that has been cited is the Land Development Code, Section 2.02.03. So you're going to have to decide if that particular provision of the code has been violated and if so, what to do about it. You can't make new law. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that there is not a violation, based on the case presented and the statute. MR. HUDSON: Seconded. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to discuss something. You know, it states right here, 2.02.03, and it's in writing that conditional use shall be prohibited in such zoning district. That's what we're on. I like the bed and breakfast, probably a great thing. But in here, if I lived next door, maybe I wouldn't like it. So I think we're not doing what we should be doing and we're saying -- I think there's a violation that does exist. And I'm quoting what our code enforcement officer said. So -- I'm in denial of that motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I agree. And if I look at the County Attorney's, and we go to a County Attorney to get an opinion, and that continue opinion, there's no doubt in my mind it says it's not authorized and it calls it transient lodging. And I just don't think it should be allowed in this situation, or we shouldn't have wasted our time talking to the County Attorney. MR. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman, again, I would just like to note that's why I opposed this being admitted into this case. I think that this attorney should have had the opportunity to cross-examine the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion that a Page 37 June 28, 2012 violation does not exist and we have a second. All those in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And those opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Nay. MR. MIESZCAK: (Indicating.) MR. L'ESPERANCE: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's three. So a violation does not appear to exist on a vote of 4-3. That's it. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MR. PERLOW: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, can we take a 10-minute break, please? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The Board is going to take a 10-minute break at this time. We'll reconvene at a quarter after. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to active session. MS. BAKER: The next -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Our next case? MS. BAKER: -- case is number three, Case CELU20110011262, Gracelyn Mostaccio Rue. MR. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman, I have to recuse myself from this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I think that we'll have paperwork too for you to sign. MS. RAWSON: He's already signed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's ahead of the game. Okay. (Jonathan Slaby and Supervisor Perez were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in vio -- Page 38 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One second. Could we swear everybody in that's going to testify today? MS. SLABY: For the record, I am not Gracelyn Mostaccio Rue, and in fact her name has been changed to Gracelyn Slaby. I am her husband, Jonathan Slaby. I do have that whole box of mess over there, a quitclaim deed that says that is so, and it has been filed with the county several years ago. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name. MR. SLABY: S-L-A-B-Y. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we continue -- MS. RAWSON: At this time, I think you can do obviously the code enforcement officials, as well as the respondents, but I don't know how many other people are testifying, so I think it would probably be better if you had them sworn in as they testify. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, you were saying something that was off the microphone? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was asking whether everybody that's going to testify this morning should be sworn in now, and Jean has responded that they'll swear each person that's going to testify in as they testify. MS. RAWSON: I only have one speaker slip, but there probably are more. MS. BAKER: I don't have any. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could I have hands of everybody here who intends to speak? Okay. MS. BAKER: Just on this case. MS. RAWSON: You know, I think my speaker slip is not even for this case. Oh, yes, it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're going to have to stay after Page 39 June 28, 2012 school, Jean. MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 .04.01(A). Description of Violation: Kowiachobee Animal Preserve, Estates zoned property, advertising and allowing scheduled trips and tours for the public to view animals on an Estates zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: 2861 Fourth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 40926160000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Gracelyn Mostaccio Rue, a/k/a Gracelyn Slaby, 261 -- 2861 Fourth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: August 30th, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 26th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 26th, 2011. Date of reinspection: April 11th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, which Ms. Baker will distribute. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have the exhibits been seen by the respondent? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: We did provide them a copy this morning, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. Page 40 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: In the exhibit package, the first package is labeled Land Development Code Sections, and it consists of three land development codes that might be discussed: The 104.1 general land use, Section A. Section 2.03.01 is the Estates zoning district. And Section 5.02.03 is the home occupation that is mentioned in the Determination of Violation form. There's also three photos taken on August 18, 2011 by Investigator Patrick Baldwin. There are three photos that were obtained from Naples Daily News in an article dated May 12th, 2012. There's the zoning manager's Determination of Violation form. And there's the original brochure and website that we first reviewed when this case came before us. This case was initiated approximately a year ago as a complaint received on August 12th, 2011. Investigator Patrick Baldwin met with the property owner Grace Rue, also known as Gracelyn Slaby, and her husband Jonathan Slaby, and informed them of the complaint our office had received. Further research of the website and the brochure revealed that upon calling the number, scheduling an appointment, the public was able to visit the property, schedule field trips and tours. Page 41 June 28, 2012 On August 19th, 2011, Collier County Zoning Manager Ray Bellows, Investigator Patrick Baldwin and myself met with Mr. Slaby to further discuss the findings. Mr. Slaby stated the preserve did provide tours to local groups such as the Boy Scouts, schools, tourists from the local hotels and others to view the exotic pets on the property. Collier County staff provided Land Development Code zoning information to support the findings of the land use violation, allowing the public access to the property to view the animal preserve in the residential neighborhood. Estates Zoning District Section 2.03.01.8 does not provide such land use as an allowable accessory to the conditional -- or a conditional use; therefore, applying the Illegal Land Use Section 1.04.01 .A, and see the page in the exhibit that's titled Land Development Code Sections. In paraphrase, that section says the provisions of this Land Development Code shall apply to all land, property and development in the total unincorporated area of Collier County. No development shall be undertaken without private authorization pursuant to this Land Development Code. Specifically no land shall hereby be developed or occupied, altered, accept in conformancy with the regulations set forth herein and for the zoning districts in which it is located. The zoning district for the Estates defines the purpose and intent of the Estates zoning district as a low density residential development in a semi rural to rural environment with limited agricultural activities. A Notice of Violation was issued upon completion of the Determination of Violation form used by county staff that was completed by the zoning manager. The Estates zoning district does not permit a zoo, preserve, schedule events, field trips from the local schools, advertising to the public to call and arrange site visit or tour of the exotic animals on this subject property. Even as a non-profit organization, all such activities are prohibited on this residential property. Page 42 June 28, 2012 The keeping of the exotic animals on the Estates zoned property is not a violation; the property owner is allowed to keep his exotic animals on-site as personal pets and otherwise as noted in the Determination of Violation form. In conclusion, the issue before you today is the zoning regulation of illegal land use of the residential property in the Estates zoning district. The animal preserve and allowing the public to access the property within the residential neighborhood to view the exotic animals, whether it's by way of tours, school bus field trips, scheduled or not scheduled events, it is not allowed in such a zoning district by the Collier County Land Development Code. I'd also just like to mention that I did receive an email June 24th from a supporter of the preserve who is not in the country, and specified that they would not be able to be here for the hearing but would like to say a couple of words. So I don't know when you'd like to, you know, receive a copy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Might as well read it right now. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Okay. Want me to just go ahead and read it? This is from Morgan Skipper, she says: Hello, my name is Morgan Skipper, I am a friend of Grace and John Slaby. I heard about their problems and asked what I could do to help. I am currently in Afghanistan so unfortunately I cannot make the hearing, but I would like to put in a word. I absolutely believe that they are a great service to the community. Teaching the community about wildlife is really important and where you can have the opportunity to learn and see in person at the same time. These people take great care of their animals and teach a great deal of people about them. Churches, schools and many other groups have been to the preserve to see and learn. I believe the (sic) more communities should have more people like Grace and John around. They care so much for the community Page 43 June 28, 2012 and these animals. It would be so terribly unfortunate for anything to happen to them. I hope and pray that you can help them. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is the county done? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. SLABY: Morning. Do I need to restate my name? Jonathan Slaby, owner of the property. Also director of operations for the Kowiachobee Animal Preserve. We have boxes and boxes of material that support what we do for the community, the types of activities we're involved with. However, I do realize that has nothing to do with this case. At this time I would ask the case be dismissed altogether. I do not find it as a violation of the land use code, being that it is not in reference to any commercial type activity. We agree and concede with the county's definition that certain activities on a business level are not allowed in Golden Gate Estates. For example, the sale of anything from store front, Kowiachobee Animal Preserve does not sell anything, T-shirts, wrist bands or any type of products on property, as well as we do not charge admission. In reference to tours, field trips, they are under -- and even in the county's own memorandum, that these things are not allowed, but it's under a reference to commercial activity in the Golden Gate Estates area. Being that we don't charge admission and we do not sell anything the word commerce is not fitting in the activities of the Kowiachobee Animal Preserve. As well as we do not open our gates to the general public. Yeah, we have advertised in the past. The county has pointed out specific wording in our website and our brochures that we have conceded and have changed, in reference to calling for specific tours or the intent to visit the property. It has been changed to calling information about the Kowiachobee Animal Preserve. You simply call the number. At that point, is whether Page 44 June 28, 2012 we choose to invite or not invite someone to our property. My contention is because there is no commercial activity going on on the property and there is no problem with me actually having the animals that I have on my property, it basically boils down to a civil liberties issue, my personal right as a homeowner to invite or not invite anybody onto my property. You cannot enter my property. The gate is locked on a normal basis by a padlock or a gate opener. You are not allowed to come on my property unless I invite you onto my property. Which is the simple right of anybody to be able to do so. Anybody coming onto the property from the general public without an invitation would be in violation of trespassing. So my contention is that this really is not a land use violation and any type of cited violation would actually be a violation of my civil liberties or my personal property rights. I would contend that anybody for any reason inviting somebody on their property, no matter what it is, has the right to do so. Somebody that was a coin collector that possibly attended a coin collecting convention ran into somebody that was also a coin collector and had a coin collecting club and found out about a certain collection that you kept at your residence should be allowed to invite said coin collecting club to his property to view those coins. As long as he was not charging them to do so, as long as he was not advertising that you can come, or as long as he -- there was no commerce involved. So I would contend that the land use issue is not so much a debate of whether or not I've invited somebody to my property but whether it's in reference to actual commercial activity. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have anybody else that is going to speak in your behalf? MR. SLABY: I believe so. There was somebody here but -- MS. RAWSON: I have one -- MR. SLABY: -- it might be a little more specific about it. MS. RAWSON: I have one speaker slip. Dwaine Parker. Page 45 June 28, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have one question for the respondent. Sir? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Mr. Slaby, he has a question. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Sir, I have one question for you. Have any monetary donations been received in the past? MR. SLABY: Yeah, but they're not required or solicited. But I will make reference to the fact that even off-site, when it comes to educational ventures, excluding maybe an exhibit with a hotel or somebody that's not related to what our mission statement is, those charges would come into play. And I do have a county exhibition permit to do so. When it comes to donations, it's completely up to them whether they want to leave it or not. We don't even accept money into our hand. There's a jar that says donations. Not a requirement. Whether somebody gives or not is completely up to them. And I will not open my mouth in protest if somebody leaves without leaving a dime. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: And just if I can clarify, when he said he has an exhibition permit, he has the -- because he says he has a county exhibition, it's the county occupational license, home occupational license. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SLABY: Which requires a land use permit. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: And he did obtain that in 2005. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, just to narrow this down a little bit, he is permitted to have the animals that are out there. And I guess the county -- the county's concern is that there's a commercial venture going on out there; is that the county's contention? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Well, in my testimony the word commercial was not mentioned. It's the continuous traveling of the community members, the public, you know, the field trips. In your evidence packet there are photographs from Naples Daily News which Page 46 June 28, 2012 are school children on a field trip to the preserve. And that's where, you know, we're saying that the preserve itself in allowing, you know, the public to visit the property, whether it be by scheduled appointments, you know, organizations, local groups and schools are not allowed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have employees? MR. SLABY: No, sir. Kowiachobee Animal Preserve has no paid employees; everybody is completely 100 percent volunteer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you have your speaker come forward and then we can ask our questions after. (Mr. Parker was duly sworn.) MR. PARKER: Good morning. My name is Dwaine, D-W-A-I-N-E, Parker, P-A-R-K-E-R. I'm here today because I'm a concerned citizen. I do not know John other than this morning. Today was the very first day I met him. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can you speak a little closer to the microphone, please? MR. PARKER: I have not been to his property, although I intend to go to his property because I have children and I wanted my children to see the animals. I became aware of this case through a newspaper article through the Naples Daily News. And when talking about it, I learned that a friend of mine happens to volunteer out there, so I asked her about the specifics of the case. She provided me with the documents. I read through the documents. And after reading the documents, I became very concerned about the case and Collier County Code Enforcement's position in this case. John is a homeowner, just like I am. Everything he does on that property is lawful. He has the permits to have the animals, he pays his taxes. When you look at the tax code for his property on the tax website, it's zoned agriculture. He's in the Tax E district, that's correct. And when I looked up the code use for Tax E, county code's Page 47 June 28, 2012 correct, everything that's mentioned in there, states under commercial purpose. So I went to the State of Florida website and I looked up the definition for commercial. And basically it's not anything that we would think to be arbitrary of what a common person would think would be commercial. Because you can't sell anything, you can't receive money. Anything commercial, it has to do with making a profit or exchanging of money for the purpose of having a business. And his wildlife sanctuary is not there to make a profit, it's there to serve the community for educational purposes. My concern is this: When he was issued this notice, he was given a cease and desist order from the county. So it's private property. Any person that comes to that residence to see those animals has to be invited by him. So the county has basically told him that he's no longer allowed to invite anyone to his property. In fear that if he does invite someone over there and county code goes by there and takes pictures of the cars, county code can't even determine whether that car is there for a dinner party at his house because it's his aunt or if it's there because someone who he invited him legally -- or he invited them legally there to go look at some of the animals. You can't determine the difference. It's private property. He's invited that guest. It's no difference than if I invite somebody at my house. In the complaint that it says, well, there's school buses going up and down the road, well there's school buses going up and down that road every day when school's in session. So the amount of traffic isn't increased due to the school buses. And then the children coming over. Well, the question might be, well, he doesn't know those children on the bus. He doesn't need to know those persons on the bus. If he goes out and he meets a group of people at Seminole Casino and he tells them about his animal cages that he has there with the animals in it, he doesn't know those persons but he has every right as a U.S. citizen and a Florida State citizen to invite them to his house to Page 48 June 28, 2012 see what he has. He's not asking for any money, he's not asking for anything in return. He's sharing information with somebody and he's showing them something that he's proud of. That's his right as a citizen. And for the county to come in and say you're not allowed to invite somebody on private property to your house is very dangerous. Very dangerous. So basically you're telling this person for the last 10 months that he's not allowed to invite anybody to his house. Although his house is run legally, he's allowed to have the animals there, there's nothing by code that's mentioned in the complaint that has stated that he's in violation of except for the amount of who's coming to his house. And personally I don't think it's any of the county's business who he's inviting to his house. As long as they're acting legally and morally and as long as they arrive legally, what difference does it make what mode of transportation that his guests come to his house? If they decide to come there on a bus, he can do it. If I want to go down to Stevie Tomatoes and invite everybody who's there that night to my house to come over and look at my cat and they get on a bus and they drive there, I have every right to do that. That's my right as a homeowner in who I invite to my house as a guest. Every person that comes to his house is a guest. This -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you begin to wrap up. MR. PARKER: Yes, sir, I am. This sanctuary has been in business for 10 years. There's been several complaints on it that I found through the county. And every time there was a complaint on it, the county code enforcement person, up until this last one, stated that he is a sanctuary, the complaint's not valid. If you look back through the complaints, every time there was a complaint made, it was found not a complaint. It was not a valid complaint because he's met every code, he's done everything right. Everything. And now all of a sudden the county says you're not Page 49 June 28, 2012 allowed to have people at your house or the amount of people at their house and the mode of transportation in which they're coming by is not right. I think that's very dangerous. In this last case at least the inspector tried to contact the County Attorney to have an opinion rendered on it. But on this case I see no such opinion except for a supervisor's opinion. My suggestion to you all is when you start having cases like this, before you serve somebody with a notice, my recommendation would be please seek the County Attorney's advice on the code violation whether it is or not. Because right now he has not been able to invite anybody to his house in fear of being violated again -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I -- MR. PARKER: -- as a homeowner. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you for your testimony. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: If I may, I have some comments that I would -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: -- like to add in reference to that. It was stated that the Notice of Violation says to cease and desist the invitation, inviting people over. The Notice of Violation says that in order to comply, that corrective actions must be taken, must comply with all land standards of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended. An animal preserve cannot be operated on an Estates zoning parcel. Number two: Must cease and desist all advertisement of field trips and tours to the Kowiachobee Preserve. And then number three: Owner cannot have field trips/tours from the public to the Estates property for exotic view. It does not specify anything about inviting anyone to come to the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you go back to the first item that you mentioned? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The item number one under the Page 50 June 28, 2012 corrective actions was must comply with all land use standards of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended. An animal preserve cannot be operated on an Estates zoned parcel. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just stop right there. So an animal preserve cannot be operated there; is that correct? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a difference of opinion here whether that is an animal preserve or not? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: That's the name of the location. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand that. From -- Jonathan? MR. SLABY: Obviously the word preserve is used and animal preserve is used in the reference to what our thing is. Again, I would refer (sic), does the county have the right to outlaw a word or a term? Even as simple as tour field trip. Is it the word or the intent that the word is used? What I was just looking for was a memorandum that has actually been sent to me from the county before in reference to that amendment that they're talking about for land use. At the very beginning of it, it does cite for commercial use. We are aware of everything it says. But under the heading of commercial use, say for example a dog kennel or an animal rescue, which is allowed, and we do rescue animals, it's one of the things that we do. It's not the only thing we do. Our stated goal is to educate. But there are rescues, adoptions, adoptions in, adoption out. We participate in a lot of different areas when it comes to wildlife preservation. But commercial use is not one of the functions at the preserve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I'm not asking about commercial use. Do you consider it to be an animal preserve? MR. SLABY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if it is an animal preserve, is it the county's position that that is not permitted? Page 51 June 28, 2012 SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to inquire -- MR. SLABY: Under what context, though, is my question. Under what context is an animal preserve not permitted? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Well, the other comment in reference to us not seeking -- myself not seeking the assistance of the County Attorney's Office -- the other thing was -- the other comment I wanted to make was in reference to not seeking the assistance of the County Attorney's Office. We went through the Determination of Violation form, which was in your evidence package, and I did seek the assistance of the zoning manager, who is also present here today. In that Determination of Violation it does also state that the preserve is not allowed on the Estates zoning district. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I inquire as to the purview of the occupational license, what that has to do, if we might expand on that just a moment here? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The occupational -- there's a section in that Determination of Violation where it also says that the homeowner could obtain an occupational license. And I'll go back to that form so I can cite it correctly. MR. MIESZCAK: While we're looking, can I ask -- SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Under -- MR. MIESZCAK: Go ahead. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I'm sorry. This is the second page to the page that's titled Code Case Violation Determination Checklist Attachment B. On the second page under the Violation Determination, third column, list compliance options. On the second paragraph, it says: In addition, the property owner may have a home occupational (sic) subject to the requirements of the Land Development Code to have a mobile display of exotic animals at school sites, parties and the like. Page 52 June 28, 2012 So in reference to that, I attached in the first packet what the definitions would be of the home occupational license. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do they have an occupational license? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: They do have an occupational license and they also have their state certifications for exhibition of the animals. And as stated in the determination is for mobile display. So it's not for the home. And in that home occupational section under letter C it does talk about there shall be -- it says: To that end, traveling to and from, as well as meeting or parking at the residence by either employees of the business operated therefrom who are not residing at subject address or by customers or clients of the home occupation is prohibited. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cristine, you mentioned that the zoning manager has looked at this? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does that individual want to testify as to what is considered the proper use of that zone? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes, he is -- Mr. Bellows is here. If you have specific questions that you would like to ask him, I'm sure he would be glad to answer that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would. (Mr. Bellows was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was looking at the package that we received where it says Ordinance No. 04-41. I read through that and it seems very, very general to me. Can you be more specific on the allowable use based on the zoning in that particular area? MR. BELLOWS: I'd be happy to. Collier County has many types of zoning districts. And these zoning districts specifically list uses that are deemed permitted by Page 53 June 28, 2012 right by the property owner and those uses that may be allowed with a conditional use subject to Board of County Commissioner approval. The reason we have separate zoning districts is to group those like uses so they would be compatible and not represent a hardship to adjacent property owners. Collier County has an agricultural zoning district where preserve type uses are allowed. We have had several cases within the last six months to a year where almost exact same business, they were directed to the agricultural zoning district and they had to get the conditional use. One was Ngala and the one that's currently under review is for a single-family home in the ag. district to operate an aquarium. That required a conditional use also. The Estates, if you look at the purpose and intent -- and Cristine did specify that it's a single-family primarily. And preserves, whether it's profit or not profit is not allowed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So as far as it being commercial or not commercial, that's not part of this. It's whether the preserve, if it is a preserve, is legally allowed in that particular -- at that particular site. MR. BELLOWS: I think that's part of it. And the other part is as a homeowner you are allowed to have animals. And in this case some exotic animals that require state permits are allowed. He can have a home occupation subject to the home occupation criteria, which was previously specified that no customers to the house, no additional traffic above the normal single-family. He could have like a show where he goes off-site to show the animals in display. What the concern is from a zoning standpoint is if you're a property owner adjacent to this site and there are scheduled events with schools and -- or other groups constantly coming in and out, is that the intent when they bought -- is that a single-family use? So it really boils down to what is a single-family use and what is accessory to single-family. If you're calling yourself a preserve, Page 54 June 28, 2012 there's a zoning district for that use. If you're calling yourself single-family, what are the accessory uses allowed in a single-family. Certainly we're not saying he can't have parties and show his animals at a party. And then it boils down to my mind's eye, is a not-for-profit business. What is that? Basically you're encouraging the donation to fund the operation to continue to take care of the animals. That's basically what -- preserves do that. Animal preserves, that's another agricultural use in my opinion. MR. SLABY: Can I question them? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. SLABY: My question to you, is there a county ordinance that prohibits me having a school bus on my property? MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure I understand the question. MR. SLABY: Just plain and simple. As a homeowner of a single-family residence, is it illegal -- MR. BELLOWS: Tour? MR. PERLOW: -- for me to have -- no, no tour -- a school bus on my property? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's a commercial vehicle ordinance. In the Estates you would be allowed, but not in other residential districts. MR. SLABY: Is it illegal for me to invite anybody over to my property as a homeowner? Forget everything else. MR. BELLOWS: No, I already said that. MR. SLABY: Is it illegal for me to invite an individual, anybody, or any amount of people? MR. BELLOWS: I said you can invite -- have parties at your house. MR. SLABY: Okay. So again, I state that this is the issue. Page 55 June 28, 2012 What is the violation? Is the violation the preserve? Put the preserve aside, do I have the right as a homeowner to invite somebody onto my property? MR. BELLOWS: You have that right. MR. SLABY: Okay, that's what's going on. So what exactly is the violation is my problem. What justifies, you know, the violation of what I am doing? What makes that a violation? What makes it go from I have the right to invite whoever I want on my property, although the school bus is not illegal on my property. What makes it go from one to another? Is the violation just the fact that somebody is allowed to use or leave a donation? If I, for example, as a homeowner said do not leave a donation, donate somewhere else or mail it to me, would that passify this violation? Would that be the end of it? Mind you, since May 11th, I haven't had a school field trip. I've canceled all tours. Right now I'm in compliance, but I object to this whole thing. I view it as a violation of my civil liberties and my private property rights. I am trying to follow this, and you have been in agreement, it's documented in your reports that I -- because I was not charging anybody, invitation was required for somebody to enter my property, the code enforcement office has acknowledged that in the past. So if there is a violation, my question is after 10 years why is a violation all of a sudden happening now? Why is your mind changed? And if the violation is just the fact that somebody can leave a donation, if I refuse donations or any form of income, would that satisfy the violation and I can continue doing -- inviting people as I will? MR. BELLOWS: I believe the intent is how the property's being operated. I see advertisements calling this an animal preserve. That's not allowed in the Estates. I see you have people coming to the site to take care of the animals. That's kind of an employee-based -- Page 56 June 28, 2012 MR. SLABY: With a conditional use. I understand the conditional use, but the conditional use, again, yeah, what do you get a conditional use permit for? You get it for a commercial business or some type of activity that requires that you need some sort of business license or something. You know, I'm simply stating that all I am doing is inviting individuals on my property. MR. BELLOWS: And I said you can do that. MR. SLABY: Okay. So what makes it a violation? The fact that I collected donations or somebody would like to leave it? MR. BELLOWS: The fact that you are advertising a business called an animal preserve. MR. SLABY: Okay, the wording that you told me was in violation was inviting people to come out on tours. I eliminated that. All that's in my advertising now is what it is, what we do, what our mission is, and to call for information. Okay, advertising. Do I advertise on TV? No, I do not. Do I advertise in a newspaper through a paid ad? No. Do you know how people find out about the Kowiachobee Animal Preserve? I meet them. I go out into the public. I take an animal out, I go to community events, I go to parks, I go to schools, I meet individuals and I hand them the brochure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it's time to -- we're going over the same thing over and over again. I'm looking at the photo that says animal preserve. MS. RAWSON: We have -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You say an animal preserve is not a use there? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MS. RAWSON: We have another speaker. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, let's hear the other speaker and then we'll close -- Page 57 June 28, 2012 MR. SLABY: I would like to note that that animal preserve sign that they have a picture of is attached to a mobile trailer that is used for off-site activities. MS. RAWSON: Dr. Lori Loper. (Dr. Loper was duly sworn.) DR. LOPER: Good morning. Good morning. I had not intended to speak, and I hope I don't cry. But I am a former superintendent of a large school district outside the Space Center in Houston. And I have worked with children as a therapist for many years prior to my many years as a school administrator. I retired when my husband died, came here, and I am currently the president of the Lions Club, Lions Club of Naples, and active of course in my church. I don't know how I came to find John, but it was a blessing. And I probably will cry, because there's a lot of emotion when people look at animals and the care that's given to them in his family. Let's take away the name preserve. Can't we call it family? Can we call it animal collection? What would you suggest? If that's in a preserve, it becomes a legal entity within itself I don't think that exists. The first time I went out, my first vision was that of an ostrich who sleeps with a tiny donkey at night. They cuddle. Children love to see the two turtles interact. I like the chickens and the big horse. I guess those aren't allowed anywhere in Collier County either? Is that a preserve? No. They do have some cats. And my son had returned from employment in England, and as he was looking for a position as an engineer, he found solis in going out there and saying, you know, John, I can do stuff. May I build some new cages, some really nice ones? Perhaps you can make a larger cage? But then he spent several days shoveling you know what, cleaning up wherever he could. And there have been many people who have gone out as well. Yes, John, you know, you've seen me there giving you a check. Page 58 June 28, 2012 It was not solicited. There's no place out there that you can really be charged anything. You just go out with the love of your heart for seeing some beautiful animals being cared for. Well, that check says this is for food, you know, a lion, a tiger, a cougar, those animals eat a lot. So I go out occasionally and just give money for food. It's not a donation, it's not to pay his salary or anything like that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Doctor, I think your time has expired. DR. LOPER: Yes, thank you. And I have one more comment. When I worked with the Lions Club, we serve 1,000 children, you know, in our area every year, vision and hearing. And we go to the county collection of all the agencies that come together and do things for needy children. John brings one or two of his animals just on display so that those children who can't afford to go to a zoo might see an animal. And I think that's notable. Thank you for your time and I certainly hope you look deep in your heart. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Doctor. With that, I'd like to close the public hearing. If I get a -- MR. SLABY: I would -- can I state one more thing? I mean, the original violation is land use. You know, whether or not I'm a preserve, you know, the fact that I call my preserve is not the stated violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one more question for the county. Did this come about because of neighbors, problems with the traffic in the area? Is that what instigated this -- SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The complaint that came in through us came in through the zoning department. There was a complaint in regards to the activity on the property, which we received the website Page 59 June 28, 2012 information and the brochure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Was it from an adjacent resident? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: That I don't know. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: We have received additional complaints, you know, with regards to activities still happening on the property from anonymous complainants. MR. SLABY: And again, one of the things that I did state to code enforcement is the problem with anonymous phone calls, especially in somebody that deals with wildlife that so many people have so many different passionate opinions on, there's no telling whether that phone call was actually from a neighbor or from somebody that might maliciously want to do harm. Recent phone calls I've actually identified as individuals who live nowhere near us. We also have had complaints that were sent down our way from as far as Tampa from Big Cat Rescue who had sent letters to all my neighbors, which my neighbors brought to my attention that they were basically trying to say that we were doing bad things and that the neighbors should be aware of what they're doing there. Fortunately I've introduced myself to the majority of my neighbors. Rather than keep them out I always invite them in so they don't have to be in the dark about what's there or be concerned. I always find out that what you don't know or what you don't understand is always going to be your worst nightmare. So they are invited in to view the place and understand what we do. Also, the concern with an anonymous phone call is, does that person realize that we're not running a business. Is that the complaint, that we're running a business or doing commercial activity? A lot of people call out of jealousy in reference to how come they're allowed to do something that I was not allowed to do, without even really understanding what the person is actually doing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Page 60 June 28, 2012 With that, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to close the public hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. (At which time Ms. Flagg enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The public hearing has ended. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I just had one. I got this picture here, but is that a volunteer or spectator? MR. SLABY: That's a volunteer. We do not allow contact with any of the big cats by visiting individuals. That's actually illegal by FWC and USDA standards. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, as we've said before, I'll make one comment, we don't write the LDC, we are only here to interpret what it says. And from what I understand from the county, there is a restriction on having a preserve. Whether it's on your sign that says preserve, I don't know what the definition of a preserve is other than animals are there. I don't think it talks to whether or not there's a charge for the service or the demonstrations or not. I don't think that's part of the problem that we have. It's not a commerce type thing. Page 61 June 28, 2012 I understand your concern and I'm sure your neighbors there, there are probably some neighbors who have no problem with it and others have a problem with the traffic maybe, I don't know. But I'm looking to the Board to come up with a suggestion one way or the other. MR. DOINO: If it's a name issue, why don't you just change the name or delete it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would almost ask the county, could Jonathan go before the BCC and request a special use of the property that would take care of the zoning issue? MR. BELLOWS: There are conditional uses for similar uses, as I previously mentioned, but those are conditional uses allowed in the agriculture zoning district. We did meet with the property owners' attorney, was it a month ago or so, and we did offer--we rendered an opinion that a conditional use could be applied for in regards to operating in conjunction as part of a private type school operation where you could have these educational facilities as part of a tie-in with the school. I don't know if anything's come of that, but that was something we felt was eligible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me just make a statement. There's no question you do provide a benefit to the community. But there are certain areas of the county that do allow this with a conditional use and there's certain areas of the county that do not allow this. And unfortunately I think you're in an area that does not allow this and even with a conditional use. So I make a motion that there is a violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Page 62 June 28, 2012 Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor, say aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) Opposed? MR. DOINO: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Three to three. You don't get to vote. So I think we're three to three right now. We can try it again. My concern is preserve. It's either a preserve or it's not a preserve. If it's a preserve and it's not permitted, it's not permitted. MR. DOINO: He's been there 10 years though. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand, it's been there 10 years, and that's why I voted the way I did. MR. MIESZCAK: But you have to remember too, a lot of things that come before this board, nobody's known about it. It could have been that way for 20 years. And then sometimes once somebody says something, then you have to respond. And that's why you have to go with the rules we have. So -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ms. Flagg? MS. FLAGG: Just as clarification, the issue is use, not whether it's a preserve. Whether they can have the public visiting in a neighborhood community, buses and cars. So irrespective of what it's called, it's the use of buses and cars coming through a neighborhood to visit the facility. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is not a -- it's not unlike visiting some of the locations in the county at Christmastime with the lights Page 63 June 28, 2012 where everybody is -- but they're welcomed by the community. And in this particular case, I don't know what the community in that particular area is like, I don't know if the school buses are blocking the road, I just don't know. MS. FLAGG: It's not that they're blocking the road. My understanding is that they've been -- you know, that the -- we haven't gotten any complaints that the buses are blocking the road. The issue is that it's a use issue because of the zoning district that this facility is located within. The zoning district is a neighborhood district, and therefore the zoning laws prohibit visitation by buses and cars in the public to this facility. As the Zoning Manager indicated, if they relocated the facility to an agricultural zoned facility, not a residential facility, if they relocated it to an agricultural zoning district and they obtained a conditional use by the Board of County Commissioners, they could have all the visitors that they wanted. This is simply a zoning issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is RS-1, I believe? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, Estates. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's Estates. Can't you have RS-1 in the Estates? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The permitted use is single-family dwellings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are we going to try this again or -- MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I think as the evidence stands today, it appears as the county presented their case that there's a violation of the existing conditions. There obviously are other avenues to go get that changed if the respondent wants to keep on with this activity and that type of process. I don't see how we can not find that there's not a violation of the existing codes and ordinance as they stand today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we make another motion? Page 64 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure, try it again. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. MR. DOINO: Opposed. MR. MIESZCAK: Any discussion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll get the vote before you get -- okay, based on your description, I can't disagree with you, so I am going to change my vote and vote with the amendment. So all those in favor, say aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. L'ESPERANCE: Opposed. MR. DOINO: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have two opposed? Okay, this is not the end of the road, obviously. I'm sure you can appeal this and take it to the Board of County Commissioners and go from there. MR. SLABY: I would like clarification. Am I or am I not allowed to invite anybody on my property? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's been discussed and -- MR. SLABY: I mean anybody. Am I allowed not even to invite my friend, an acquaintance? What is the definition? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe that they said you can invite anybody you want on your property. MR. SLABY: Okay. Page 65 June 28, 2012 MS. BAKER: Would you like our recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, I would like your recommendation. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: County recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$79.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by one: Cease and desist all field trips/tours from the general public and animal preserve located on the Estates zoned property within blank amount of days of this hearing or a fine of blank amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 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 the order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have somebody who would like to fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll give it a shot. My motion would be that the respondent pay operational costs of -- how much? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $79.43. MR. LAVINSKI: I'm a little torn as to whether this is a prohibited animal type of thing regarding a seven-day, but I'd like to make a motion that the violation be cleared in 60 days or a fine of $100 a day be imposed. MR. SLABY: I've already stated the violation has been cleared. We haven't been accepting anything since May 11th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, does a violation still exist there right now? Page 66 June 28, 2012 SUPERVISOR PEREZ: When this case was prepared for the hearing in the month of May, there was still a violation, you know, as included in your packet with the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As you understand things, does a violation exist now? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes. MR. SLABY: How? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: And also from other complaints that we've continued to receive, you know, the activity. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let's continue on with this and then we'll talk about that. So we have a motion to the $79.43 operational costs; come into compliance within 60 days or $100 a day fine; is that correct? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, James. And we have a second on that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second from Mr. Lefebvre. Any discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. DOINO: (Indicating.) MR. L'ESPERANCE: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two. Okay, now, where do we go from here? It's either in compliance Page 67 June 28, 2012 now or it's not. The respondent should know what needs to be done to come in compliance if he currently thinks that it's in compliance now. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Well, we could also get together with the zoning manager, the zoning department, in reference to the animal preserve and what needs to be done in order for that to be completely abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Terrific. Okay. MR. SLABY: I can't. Everybody's asking me what do you do now? I have no idea. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think the next thing you should do is to meet with Cristine -- MR. SLABY: All I know is I feel violated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and see what can be worked out so that everybody is in compliance. Give a couple of minutes for everybody to settle down. MS. BAKER: Do you want to take a five-minute break? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah five minutes. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. I was reminded after two and a half hours, we're still on case number four. We'll be here till 3:00 in the morning. No, whatever it takes. Jen, who's next? MS. BAKER: Next case is number four, Case CESD20120000189, Jorge G. Rodriguez. (Sucet Rodriguez and Investigator Short 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: Garage and CBS guest house with no valid Collier County building permits. Page 68 June 28, 2012 Location/address where violation exists: 1165 Everglades Boulevard North, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 40579120002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Jorge G. Rodriguez, 1165 Everglades Boulevard North, Naples Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: January 6, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 13th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 13th, 2012. Date of reinspection: May 10th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: High Eric, good morning. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One aerial photo obtained and printed from Collier County Property Appraiser's GIS mapping, and two photos taken by myself on June 27th, 2012. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the -- INVESTIGATOR SHORT: They have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- photos? Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion -- MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- do we have a second? Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 69 June 28, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: This case originated on January 6th, 2012 for an unpermitted concrete block garage and guesthouse. And an unpermitted chain link fence with a gate. The property owners have since permitted the chain link fence and are working with Mr. Bob Lockhart, a local engineer, to bring the garage and guesthouse into compliance. To date no permits have been applied for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is how it's been sitting for quite a while? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I'm not sure of the specific time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There was a building permit pulled on it originally and it's expired? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. And actually in 2004 a permit was pulled for a four-car garage, and in 2006 for the CBS guesthouse. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Hi, how are you? To begin with, we just bought the house in December of 2012 (sic). So from, you know, what happened before, we don't know. On January 16th we signed the contract with Bob Lockhart, a civil engineer, to, you know, make the plans and submit the permits. So he did that. And then on May 16th we came to submit the permits, but we were missing the codes on the windows and doors. So we gave them that within two weeks, and we haven't heard from him. We call him, he doesn't answer. We paid him what he has to be paid. We don't Page 70 June 28, 2012 want to go to his house because probably it will be considered harassment or who knows what. He doesn't answer our phone calls. We don't know what to do. That's basically it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if I understand, you went to somebody and -- you bought it in December? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you have an inspection done by code enforcement to see if there were any outstanding permits or whatever? MS. RODRIGUEZ: When -- we did come to the county and we got all the papers. I mean, we got up to date with everything that had been done in the past that wasn't done, everything that was C.O.'d that wasn't. So that's why, you know, we decided to get Bob that would help us with all of this. MS. BAKER: Ms. Rodriguez, can you state on the record what your relationship to Mr. Rodriguez is? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He's my dad. MS. BAKER: And your authority to speak on his behalf? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MS. BAKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And so in January you contacted the contractor? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the contractor was going to, I guess apply for new building permits since the -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: Right, right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- old ones were expired. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you paid him? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you can't get ahold of him anymore; is that -- Page 71 June 28, 2012 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Exactly. We have the plans, we have everything. Everything is set. He just -- we came May 15th to -- or May 16th to submit the plans, but we were missing the codes on the doors and windows. We gave him that information and, you know, we haven't heard from him since. You know, we told him that the county was back in our house; he said I will contact them. I think Eric did tell me that he sent him an email but then he tried calling him and he didn't answer. You know, we call him all the time. I mean, there's nothing we can do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is he a licensed contractor? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In Collier County? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you ever heard of a place called the Contractor's Licensing Board? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I have not. This is the first time, you know, we are involved in this. MS. FLAGG: The supervisor just told me he's going to walk her over to contractor licensing after the hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They may be able to help you there. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: And just to correct the statement, on April 30th I did speak to Bob Lockhart. And he claimed to be working on permitting the structures. I requested a written statement, you know, showing that he is making compliance efforts and did not receive anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I believe the Contractor's Licensing Board will be able to help you. But right now we have this case to dispose of. Anything from the board? Any questions? MR. HUDSON: I really think that, Mr. Chairman, we probably shouldn't have gotten here, it should have been like a motion for time Page 72 June 28, 2012 extension, continuance, et cetera. I mean, they should have either contacted an attorney or gone to the licensing contracting board. And since it seems like it's their first time here and they just bought the home, I really wish we would have had the ability to give them more time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that a violation does exist -- or before I say that, a violation does exist, but would it be better to maybe withdraw this case and see -- MS. FLAGG: That's what we'd like to do. What we're going to do is withdraw the case and go work with contr -- have her work with contractor licensing and see if they can assist with her contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I believe that they will return their telephone calls. MR. LAVINSKI: Diane, is this one that possibly fell through the cracks where they bought it from Fanny Mae -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Time out. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, we have a lot of people talking. MR. LAVINSKI: Is this one of those situations -- I know she's trying to ensure that people don't inherit problems that aren't theirs. She bought this problem in December, or Jorge did, from Fannie Mae. MS. FLAGG: There's no prohibition in purchasing a property that has code violations. What we ask folks to do is to know what they're buying before they buy it. So they know what they're buying before they buy it by having a lien search done and a code property inspection done. MR. LAVINSKI: But Fannie Mae does not owe them any allegiance or anything? MS. FLAGG: No, Fannie Mae, if they agreed to buy, those are typically as-is contracts. So if the buyer negotiated down the price to buy the property as-is, Fannie's releasing their responsibility and the Page 73 June 28, 2012 new buyer is buying it as-is. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think I had made a motion. I withdraw that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you, Eric. MS. BAKER: Okay, next case is number six, Case CESD20120003854, Wilkert and Fidelene Eugene. (Wilkert Eugene and Supervisor Joe Mucha 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: Permit for addition that has not completed all inspections and received certificate of completion/occupy, and the permit is now expired. Location/address where violation exists: 4478 18th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 35757800007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Wilkert Eugene and Fidelene Eugene, 447818th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: March 13th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 14th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 13th, 2012. Date of reinspection: May 1st, 2012. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case initiated on March 13th of 2012. I received a complaint in regards to a house that had an addition started several years ago and was not complete. I researched the property and found that the most recent permit from 2010 for the addition had expired and that there was a previous Page 74 June 28, 2012 permit from 2007 that had also expired. March 14th of this year I made a site visit to the property to meet with the owner. He was not at home at that time so I posted the Notice of Violation at the property and the courthouse and also sent it certified and regular mail. On April 14th I researched and found that the owners had applied for a new permit on March 19th of this year and it had been rejected on March 23rd. I spoke to the owner via phone and advised him to contact our project coordinator, Renald Paul, to help him with corrections for the permit application. On April 30th I researched and found that the corrections had still not been submitted for the permit. On May 15th I checked again and the corrections had still not been submitted. At that time I elected to prepare the case for hearing. The permit has been issued now as of June 15th. I'd like to submit evidence of one photograph taken on March 14th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the picture? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Yes, he has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept it? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 75 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: This picture is just depicting the addition from what it would look like from the street side. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's this, a second floor addition with a garage underneath? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: It's not a second floor addition, it's just CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that the front door? What am I looking at here? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: That's the front of the property. The garage is off to the left side. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? MR. EUGENE: Yes. Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What can you tell us? MR. EUGENE: Yes, and I start that project since '07 when I had -- when I start that project, I had the constru -- I have a truck in business. So when the market drop, everything drop so I couldn't continue. In 2010 I came back, I renew the payment. I paid about $1,500. But still I had one inspection, but still I didn't have enough money to put in there with the project, so the payment was expired in between six month. So that's why I got that violation. So I went back to the county so take care of everything last week. So I call for the plumbing inspection. It already pass. So now I just need a little bit more time in order for me to finish the job. I want one year to deal with my finances now. So I need at least one year to finish the project. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're asking for one year to finish the project; is that correct? MR. EUGENE: Yes, sir. Page 76 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board, or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anything from the country relative to the time frame requested? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: The only thing is, like I said, this project started in 2007, so it's been five years. So it seems to me like one more year, I don't know if he's going to able to get it done if finances are the issue. MR. LEFEBVRE: How big of an area are we talking? What's the square footage of the addition, roughly? MR. EUGENE: About 600. It's one room plus a remodel on the front. So I already have the plumbing, so I just waiting for electrical and AC. So when I talk about my budget, within a one-year period I should be able to get it done. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we're not talking about time frames right now, we're talking about finding if there's a violation exists or not, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could I get a motion from -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 77 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, it passes unanimously. So obviously we show that this is in violation. Now, to remedy it, do you have a suggestion? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by one: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the 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: Do you think you've pulled all the permits that need to be pulled? MR. EUGENE: Yes, sir, I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I see the $80.29. Permits, it appears that they've all been pulled. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: The permit was just issued on June 15th, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you said you had a final on the plumbing? MR. EUGENE: The rough plumbing -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, say that again? MR. LEFEBVRE: Rough plumbing. MR. EUGENE: -- was having passed last week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Somebody like to take this on, fill in the blanks? Page 78 June 28, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a question. Permit, you can get one permit for six months and then extend it one time; is that correct? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: I think as long as they -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Or is it just as long as they're working on it -- SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Right, every time you complete an inspection it gives it another six months of life. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that the respondent pays $80.29 in operational costs within 30 days. And within 180 days to get the final C.O. or demolition, whatever the case may be, or a fine of $150 a day. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You understand the motion that Mr. Lefebvre made? MR. EUGENE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are going to pay $80.29 within 30 days. The time frame on completing your work is six months, 180 days. And if you can't complete it within that time, before that time elapses I would suggest that you come back to the Board and ask for an extension of time, if you can't make that date. Should you not, the fine would be $150 a day for every day past that 180 days. Page 79 June 28, 2012 MR. EUGENE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You understand that? MR. EUGENE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, very good. Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number eight, Case CELU20120000522, Sherry Lictman. My name Kim Todd. I'm standing in for Sherry Lictman today. And I have a notarized statement that I just gave to Ms. Baker earlier today. (Ms. Kim Todd and Supervisor Joe Mucha were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Description of violation: Accessory structure remains on the property after primary structure was demolished due to fire. Location/address where violation exists: 371 19th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 36914600007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Sherry Lictman, 214 Avenue A, Bayonne, New Jersey, 07002. Date violation first observed: January 13, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 28th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 23rd, 2012. Date of reinspection: May 22nd, 2012. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Good morning. Again for the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present one picture into evidence taken by myself from a previous case that will depict the guest house in question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Respondent has seen the picture? Page 80 June 28, 2012 SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the picture. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: And the respondent also has a packet that she would like to present as evidence, so we'd like to give that to you at the same time. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Essentially what's going on here -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion we accept the packet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's given by the respondent. MR. MIESZCAK: Right, given by the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Page 81 June 28, 2012 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Essentially what's going on here is the principal structure of the property burned down several years ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know when the fire was? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: I want to say approximately 2002, 2003. MS. TODD: No, actually, the fire was in the late Eighties or early Nineties. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Oh, it was -- MS. TODD: It's been that long ago. For the principal structure. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: So the guesthouse, for it to be a permitted use there has to be a primary structure on the property. And since the primary structure is no longer there, that means the guesthouse is in violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the guesthouse occupied? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: No, it's not. And I've been working with the owner for a long time. And the problem is the owner has an ongoing lawsuit with an insurance company due to damages that were done to the guesthouse at some point years ago. And that's kind of what's holding her up from -- she wants to demolish the structure, but this lawsuit has to settle before she can move forward with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One quick question. Is it possible that the guesthouse could be a primary structure? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: I think based on the size of it, because I think it's only -- is it about 600 square foot? MS. TODD: It's less than the 1,000 square feet that's required for a primary structure for Golden Gate Estates area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 82 June 28, 2012 SUPERVISOR MUCHA: And I've been working with the contractor here, Kim Todd, for a long time. She's pulled a permit, she's ready to go, she's just waiting for the okay from the owner. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a possibility that the county might want to consider withdrawing this, or do you recommend that we continue? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: This case has been going on since January. This lawsuit's been going on since before that. So there's no telling when this lawsuit's going to settle. As far as I know -- how long has this lawsuit been going on? For a couple years now? MS. TODD: Almost two years now. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: So, I don't -- the house itself is secure, it's boarded, so health and safety is not an issue. It's just the fact of it just being there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the dispute is with the insurance company on damage that was done to the accessory structure; is that correct? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe you can enlighten us a little bit more. MS. TODD: For the record, my name is Kim Todd and I'm a licensed building contractor here in Collier County. Ms. Lictman has acquired my services to help her do whatever needs to be done to make everything right. She had originally purchased this as an investment property and she was renting the guesthouse out. And there was -- the renter wasn't paying rent and so he ended up saying that he would do some work on the place to help pay for the rent, like put tile and paint and stuff like that. Well, she said that he shouldn't be living there until he could pay the rent and get all this done. So he was still going there but he wasn't living there. And so because he wasn't there every night there were Page 83 June 28, 2012 some children in the neighborhood that vandalized the home. And so it ended up -- they vandalized it pretty bad. And so anyway, she -- that's when she got me involved. And then I was talking to Joe about it, because I said I don't know if this thing needs to be condemned or not, because it was pretty bad. And so she contacted the insurance company and they said they weren't going to pay it because it was vacant. Well, come to find out legally it was considered vacant because there -- I mean not vacant because there was work being done on it. So anyway, she went, hired a lawyer, and so it's been going on. There's like several people involved with it now. And it's been going on approximately two years, since 2010, as far as the lawsuit has been going on. Maybe even 2009. But -- so then we got the boarding certificate and everything. And we were trying to renew the boarding certificate and then that's when Joe brought it to my attention that well, you know, we have to get rid of this house because there's no primary structure here. So it was like there was just a domino effect of everything. And so when we were trying to renew the boarding certificate, that's when he found out about the guesthouse needing to come off or put a primary structure there. Well, Ms. Lictman doesn't want to demolish the house until she gets the settlement, because that settlement's going to help pay for all the lawyer fees and everything that's been involved, plus pay for the demolition of the house. And she's afraid that if we demolish the house before we get the settlement, or before they get the settlement, that it's going to be detrimental to the case and then all these people are going to be unpaid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there any problems as far as safety and health on the -- SUPERVISOR MUCHA: No, sir. Like I said, it's been boarded. It's out in the Estates, it's set way back on the property, so it's not an issue. Page 84 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that if we came up with a -- well, let's see if we find a violation exists first. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess I have a question. In your package you submitted, you submitted a -- the last page says a permit. Demo permit. Back in February of this year, correct? MS. TODD: Correct. That was trying to keep -- within the violation that was submitted, we were trying to, you know, do what we're supposed to do. MR. LEFEBVRE: But that's contrary to what you just said just now in your statements that you don't want to -- she doesn't want to demo it because that might be detrimental to her case. So why would a demo permit be pulled? MS. TODD: Well, we knew we had six months to do -- you know, once you pull a permit you've got six months to do that. And she was hoping that the case would be resolved by then. Because they're close to getting a settlement. We're just not sure when the settlement -- they just did some more depositions last week, and so honestly, I don't know, and Ms. Lictman doesn't know when the settlement will come. But the -- we were supposed to comply to the violation, I think it was by the end of February, I think is when it was. And so we had applied for the demolition permit to try to be within compliance of that violation. And then we were supposed to have it demolished within six months, I believe the permit is good for. But your violation is good till May 23rd or something like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 85 June 28, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, it is in violation. I'm guessing now that if we gave sufficient time, maybe the courts would -- and the insurance company would get off their bums and resolve this and then everything goes away. MS. TODD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So anybody -- what's your recommendation, Joe? SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Yes, sir, my recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by one: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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: Thank you. Anybody like to take this on? I don't know what the amount of Page 86 June 28, 2012 time it would take to have this case resolved. Nobody does. So I would suggest that we give it sufficient time, whoever does it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that the respondent pays $80.29 in operational costs within 30 days. And I'm not sure if a building permit is really what you're looking for at this point. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Well, technically if they wanted to build a principal structure, that would cure the violation as well. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or make this 1,000 square feet. SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Or add onto it, correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So let's say get this property into compliance within 270 days, so whatever way they get it into compliance, or a fine of$150 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion, do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So 270 days hopefully the insurance company and the respondent will be able to work out their differences, and we probably won't see you until the next case you volunteer to be the general contractor on. MS. TODD: Well thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Page 87 June 28, 2012 SUPERVISOR MUCHA: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case is number nine, Case CEPM20100019476, Eric Dorestil and Elvita Pierre. (Investigator Danny Condomina was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of 2010 Florida Building Code, Chapter 4, Section 424.2.17, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-231, subsection 15. Description of violation: No protective barrier securing swimming pool. Swimming pool permit expired without obtaining a certificate of completion. Location/address where violation exists: 3661 12th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 40527040008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Eric Dorestil and Elvita Pierre, 3661 12th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: October 1st, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 30th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 25th, 2012. Date of reinspection: April 26th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: For the record, Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph taken by me on April 26th, 2012. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept it? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? Page 88 June 28, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Violation first observed on October 1st, 2010. Pool permit expired in 2007 without completing several inspections. There is no fence or enclosure around pool. This property is vacant and has a notice of lis pendens recorded. Our foreclosure team has been in contact with the bank, but bank is unable to abate the violation at this time. As of today violation the remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you believe this is a safety and health issue? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would somebody like to take a shot at finding them in violation or not? MR. MIESZCAK: What do they recommend? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We got to find them in violation first. MR. MIESZCAK: Oh, I'll make a motion -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: -- to find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to find them in violation. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 89 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE. Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. They are in violation. And do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Yes, I do, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81 .72 incurred in this prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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 try to fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll take this one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, James. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that the fees of 81.72 be paid, that the violation be corrected in seven days or a fine of$250 a day be assessed. Page 90 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the $81 .72 will be paid in 30 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Right, 30 days, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case we're moving into number five, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Case number one, Case CESD20110006971, Henry and Jan E. Holzkamper. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, at this time I'm going to have to leave the hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let the record show that Mr. L'Esperance had to leave at noon. (Mr. Holzkamper and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. This concerns violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(c). Page 91 June 28, 2012 The location is 3230 Thompson Drive, Naples, Florida. The folio is 5260044005. Description is: The drywall has been removed and replaced in the east building's bottom east unit A, and the stairs in the front of the east building have been required to include but not limited to handrails, steps and supports without first obtaining all Collier County required building permits. Past orders: On August 25th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached Order of the Board OR4732 and Page 491 for more information. An extension of time was granted on February 23rd, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4472, Pages 1327 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the code enforcement orders as of June 28th, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order number one and two, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between May 24th, 2012 and June 28, 2012, 36 days, for a total of $3,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order number five, operational cost of$81.15 have been paid. Total amount to date is $3,600. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Do you have anything, pictures or -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: No, sir, this is an imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, imposition. I'm sorry. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I believe Mr. Holzkamper -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sir, you're on. MR. HOLZKAMPER: From the last time I saw you, we have been diligent. We hired a drywall contractor three months ago. And as of last week we thought everything was done, and then one final Page 92 June 28, 2012 inspector said -- raised the question were the kitchen cabinets moved? This is a small kitchen and drywall was put up on two walls. And I've got all the stuff here, everything was done. And so we thought we were done a week ago, but then they said were the kitchen cabinets moved? Well, they weren't moved. You know, there's this wall and this wall that were repaired and these walls weren't done. The total amount of work to replace the drywall probably took two men two days. Getting these retroactive permits has taken months. Anyway, we've done the best we could and it should be done very soon. It's not like we haven't been doing anything. And I have the documentation here for the engineer and the dates and everything else. I mean, it's -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may, the -- MR. HOLZKAMPER: Excuse me, I petition that the fines be dropped. We have been operating diligently as fast as we can. In getting one inspector, then the next inspector, then the fire inspector and then somebody raises a question and you have to do redo the drawings. I mean, it's insane. Insane. SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may, the latest rejection was on 6-25 and they needed some clarity the permit. Remember, this was a permit by affidavit. Your order expired and that's why we're here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we can't just erase the fines, because the violation has not been abated yet. We can't abate the fines. MR. HOLZKAMPER: One moment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I make a recommendation to the county to bring this back next month? Maybe everything will be done by then. I remember this case in the past with the stairs and whatnot. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We wouldn't object to anything the Board wanted to do. MS. FLAGG: If the goal -- the Board has set an order and the time has already expired. What we could do is bring it back next Page 93 June 28, 2012 month and hopefully they're in compliance and then they would be eligible maybe for a fine waiver. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just -- can you hear me now? MR. HOLZKAMPER: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just for clarification of what I was trying to say before, you asked for reduction of fines. We cannot reduce fines as a Board until we have abatement of the issue at hand. So until we have that, we cannot abate the fines. But what Diane was stating was that we can pull this case -- or she can pull this case till next month and hopefully by then you will have all the permits and everything and you can come back in front of us and ask for abatement of fines at that time. MR. HOLZKAMPER: We're all becoming friends. Next month, see you. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that what you're going to do? MS. FLAGG: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we need a motion for that, or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You're withdrawing it, correct? MS. FLAGG: (Nods head affirmatively.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. MS. BAKER: The next case is number two under imposition, Case CESD20110003492, Robin M. Cantara. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lavinski has to step out right now. (Ms. Cantara and Investigator Condomina were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: Did he leave for the day? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, he's -- I think he's recusing himself from this case. Is that right, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I don't know that. MR. KAUFMAN: He'll be right back. He had to go see a man about a horse. MS. RAWSON: No, he didn't recuse himself. Page 94 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, he'll be back. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation is of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 2169 Vardin Place, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 7869520424. The violation description: Expired permit No. 2010070368 for pool/spa and concrete deck, and expired permit 2010070898 for adding a lanai and summer kitchen, and an expired permit 2010081074 for tank installation with piping and to hook up a pool heater and grill. On June 23rd, 2011 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. (At which time, Mr. Lavinski returns to the boardroom.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: See the attached order of the Board, OR 4698, Page 1361 for more information. An extension of time was granted on September 22nd, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4728, Page 855 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 8th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and four, fines at the rate of$150 for the period between December 22nd, 2011 and May 8th, 2012, 139 days, for a total of$20,850. Order item number seven, operational costs of$81 .15 have been paid. Total amount to date: $20,850. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and the operational costs are paid. Page 95 June 28, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case is number three under imposition, Case CESD20100008859, James A. and Julia M. Askey. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation is of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The violation location is 670 20th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio number 39329240004. Description of the violation is an expired canceled building permit 970019848 for a CBS single-family residence. 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 ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744, Page 1112 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of June 28th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are Page 96 June 28, 2012 described as the following: Order items number one and two, fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between May 16th, 2012 and June 28th, 2012, 44 days, for the total fine amount of$6,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of$80.86 have been paid. Total amount to date: $6,600. THE COURT REPORTER: Which case was this? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: This was Askey, 2010000889 -- 859. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you go over the -- I have different numbers on my -- SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Am I on the wrong case here? My apologies. Let me start over. I'm sorry. Same violation, the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended. Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). This case number is CESD2010000 -- am I on Askey or the Ni -- MS. BAKER: Askey. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Askey. So it's CESD20100008859? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay. The Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 7920 Friendship Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 101040008. Violation description: Mobile home on property without Collier County permits. The past order: On February 24th, 2011 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 Page 97 June 28, 2012 OR 4656, Page 2321 for more information. An extension of time was granted on August 25th, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4718, Page 1667 for more information. An additional extension of time was granted on March 22nd, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4784, Page 1815 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of June 28th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order items number one and two, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between May 22nd, 2012 and June 28th, 2012, 38 days, for the total amount of$7,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$80.29 have been paid. Total amount due to date: $7,600. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. This one, as I looked at it, this came up earlier requesting an extension of time. This has been going on -- a 60-day extension was granted, a 180-day extension was granted. Maybe we're at the end of our rope here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Page 98 June 28, 2012 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you, Jeff. MS. BAKER: Next case is number four under imposition, Case CESD2010003911, Elias Nicot. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay, back to the one I already read. The violation is of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The violation location is 670 20th Street Northeast, Naples Florida. Folio number 39329240004. A violation description is: Expired canceled building permit 970019849 for a CBS single-family residence. 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 ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744 Page 1112 for more information. The property was not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of June 28th, 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 May 16th, 2012 and June 28th, 2012, 44 days, for the total fine amount of$6,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$89.86 have been paid. Total amount to date: $6,600. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody -- this is not in compliance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. Page 99 June 28, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: This next case I will be recusing myself MS. BAKER: Next case is number five under imposition. Case CESD20110004532, Judson G. White. (Judson White and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: This is with regard to violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 3330 31st Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 38055840009. Description: The original pool permit was canceled and a new permit was obtained for the pool. However, the new permit has stalled without completing all required inspections and obtaining a certificate of completion/occupancy. Past orders of the Board: On February 23rd, 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 attached Order of the Board OR 4772, Page 1307, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Page 100 June 28, 2012 Board orders as of June 28th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between May 24th, 2012 and June 28th, 2012, 36 days, for the total amount of$5,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$91.15 have been paid. Total amount to date, $5,400. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your turn to let us know what's going on. MR. WHITE: Well, we had the original -- when I purchased the house, the person that built the pool, or the contractor that built the pool, he never closed the permit, never did any inspections, and I guess he never got his final payment from the original owner of the house. And then in order for him to release that permit, he wanted me to pay $950 to him for completing the pool before. But the pool has been damaged and is shot, so it needs to be redone. I said I'd gladly pay that if he finished the pool again. But he wouldn't do it. So it took us that time just to get him to release the permit so that I could put the pool contractor that I'm going to be using to do it so that he could put in the permit so that he'd be doing the job. So what I'm here to request I guess is I'd like to have about six more months, because we've also been told that it's going to be a very lengthy process because no inspections ever being called in on it and just you know, not having a permit ever closed and C.O. for the pool. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're trying to do this by affidavit; is that correct? The pool's been built? MR. WHITE: Right. But it needs to be redone. So we're actually having a pool company come in, redo the whole thing and Page 101 June 28, 2012 bring everything up to code. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you say redone, resurfaced, pool equipment? MR. WHITE: Pool equipment was stolen. The -- it needs to be resurfaced. The decking around it needs to be replaced. These are all things I'm getting done but we haven't even been able to do anything because the old contractor on file wouldn't release the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What we're here for today though is to impose the fine, not to rehear the case, unfortunately. MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that's the predicament that we're in right now. It is not in compliance, unless somebody has a suggestion on this. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, what we can do is if you impose today, at the point that it comes into compliance then we can go to the board on his behalf and ask the fines be waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's more than fair. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you understand what Ms. Flagg said? You come into Page 102 June 28, 2012 compliance. At that date the county will assist you in going before the BCC, the Board of County Commissioners, to abate your problem. MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. WHITE: All right, thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is number six under imposition. CESD20090010573, Edgar Perez. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation was of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and the Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1. The violation location was 3445 56th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 38664320004. The violation description: No Collier County building permits were obtained for electrical and plumbing modification to the main structure and fence, and invalid building permit for a horse barn without issuance of a certificate of completion. The past order: On April 26th, 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 OR 4795, Page 110 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board order as of June 28th, 2012. The fine and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of$250 per day for the period between May 27th, 2012 and June 28th, 2012, 33 days, for a total amount of$8,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item five, operational costs of$80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $8,330.57. Page 103 June 28, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case, number seven under imposition of fines, CEAU20110013571, Jeff J. and Joan R. Reeder. (Jeff Reeder and Supervisor Perez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cristine. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good afternoon. For the record, before I read the documentation of imposition of fines, I would like to state that we did receive a request for extension about -- MR. REEDER: April 20th. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yeah, in April from Mr. Reeder requesting the extension. And we didn't present this to you at the initial hearing, so we'd like to provide that for you, you know, initially requesting an extension of time. MR. REEDER: Before? MR. LAVINSKI: And where has this been since April? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: We just did not print it up when the initial hearing started. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have something to say, Jen? Page 104 June 28, 2012 MS. BAKER: Well, I believe that the respondent is requesting an extension of time. So you may want -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Even though it's dated April? MS. BAKER: You may want to hear from him before we -- if you decide not to grant that, then we can go ahead with the imposition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Reeder? MR. REEDER: Okay. When I sent this in, this was -- I called Mr. Coletta's office and they told me what to do about getting an extension because of the cost of an engineer and everything like that for plans for two sheds. Well, since then I've gotten the plans. I went in for a permit. They reviewed them. And I needed a revision, I think it's called, for some hydrostatic drain, seeing how my property, as of March, is now in a flood zone. And right now I'm waiting on that revision. And once that's done -- everything's been done, permit by affidavit and completion. And once I get those, then I'll be able to turn them in. But until then, that's what I'm waiting for now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm a little confused because it says structure and a fence. The fence is -- MR. REEDER: Yeah. Now, I talked to the county inspector. He said what I could do was once I have the plans approved for the sheds, which also has the survey on there, I can put my fence in and turn that in and get a permit and a completion and they'll come out and check it all at the same time. That's what I was told. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Can I speak, sir? For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County -- THE COURT REPORTER: Let me swear you in. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. He has two relatively small Ted Shed type structures on the back and a fence that's surrounding it. It's -- he's been doing all the work up Page 105 June 28, 2012 until this point. He did request an extension. The county would have no objection. MR. LEFEBVRE: In April you asked for a six-month extension. MR. REEDER: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So would that mean now that you're looking for four months? MR. REEDER: I'll take the six if you give it to me. I mean, I would rather be safe than sorry, you know. I'm not going to lie to you or anything, I mean, it's expensive, you know, I can only pay what I can pay. MR. LEFEBVRE: From the time you wrote this letter -- MR. REEDER: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- till now, how much has been done to correct the problem? MR. REEDER: Right now I'm waiting on the revision on the plans. So the plans were drawn up, the plans were submitted. They said that I needed a revision, and I'm waiting on the engineer right now to supply my revision. MR. LEFEBVRE: Any idea when you're going to get that? MR. REEDER: Hopefully within the next two weeks or so. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. I make a motion to grant extension of time of four months. So 120 days from today. MR. REEDER: I'll see if-- I don't see a problem with that. Like I said, I'll take the -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 106 June 28, 2012 MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you have till April. If you can't meet it by then, come back to the board ahead of time. MR. REEDER: Yes, sir. That's why I sent this ahead of time before the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It got lost in a time warp, I guess. MR. REEDER: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have one question, administrative. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Jen, is this considered an exhibit? MS. BAKER: That's fine. We never admitted it into evidence or anything, but that's fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll put it in the pile. MS. BAKER: Okay, the next case is number eight, Case CESD201200003 3 5, Arnoldo and Daisy De La Cruz. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation is the Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 3770 47th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio number 39784640003. Description of violation: A garage enclosure, shed, elevated deck and fence without valid Collier County building permits. Past order: On April 26th, 2012 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 4795, Page 316 for more information. Page 107 June 28, 2012 The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board order as of June 28th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of$250 per day for the period between May 27th, 2012 and June 28th, 2012, 33 days, for the total amount of$8,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$80 have not been paid. Total fine to date: $8,330. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case is number nine under imposition, Case CESD20110005690, Luis Arteaga and Ruby Ossorio. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location: 775 Sixth Street Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio Page 108 June 28, 2012 number 37227400003. Description: Observed a shed on the south side of the property, a carport shed-like structure in the center of the property and shed-type structure housing chickens on the north side of the property, all built without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On February 23rd, 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 OR 4772, Page 1320 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of June 27th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between May 24th, 2012 and June 27th, 2012, 35 days, for a total of$5,250. Order number five, operational costs of$80.29 have been paid. Total amount to date, $5,250. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 109 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 11 under imposition of fines, Case CESD20110006351, David Schaare, Jr. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The original violations 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). Violation location: 520 Second Street Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37283440007. Description of violation: Barn type structure and shed built on the property without Collier County building permits. On April 26th, 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 OR 4795, Pages 318 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of June 28th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between May 27th, 2012 and June 28th, 2012, 33 days, for a total amount of$3,300. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $3,380.86. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose a fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. And a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? Page 110 June 28, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 12 under imposition, Case CEV20100018622, Krista L. Marcial Irizarry and John Irizarry. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Board Investigator. Violation: The Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A), now found in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article 3, Chapter 130-95. Location: 105 16th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio number 39210380002. Description: Many unlicensed and inoperable vehicles and trailers on the Estates zoned property. Two Volkswagen Beetles, vans, commercial trailers and more. Past orders: On May 26th, 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 4690, Page 273 for more information. An extension of time was granted on November 18th, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4744, Page 1097 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of June 28th, 2012. Page 111 June 28, 2012 Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between May 16th, 2012 and June 28th, 2012, 44 days, for a total of$4,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order number five: Operational costs of$80 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $4,480. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. I have a question. Sir, you've been sitting here since the beginning of time. We haven't called your case yet? MR. LEFEBVRE: This is the last one. MS. BAKER: It's the next one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Boy, my timing is terrible, isn't it? We generally -- if somebody is here, we generally push you up the agenda. So I apologize for not spotting you sitting behind Cherie' and I couldn't see you. MS. BAKER: Next case is under 13 under imposition, Case CESD20100020099, Paul and Jacqueline Richards. (Mr. Richards, Supervisor Letourneau and Supervisor Perez were Page 112 June 28, 2012 duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations are of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 2007 Florida Building Code, Chapter 4, Section 424.2.17. The location of the violation: 580 24th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio number 37784320002. Violation description: Permit No. 2010040206 expired on October 2nd, 2010. No certificate of completion was attained. The temporary safety barrier has fallen down and is not secure. Past order: 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 4760, Page 560 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of June 28th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and three, fines at the rate of$250 per day for the period between December 19th, 2011 and June 28th, 2012, 193 days, for the total amount of$48,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number two and four, fines at the rate of$250 per day for the period between November 25th, 2011 and March 8th, 2012, 105 days, for the total amount of$26,250. Order item number six: Abatement costs of$1,495 have not been paid. Order item number seven: Operational costs of$82.29 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $76,077.29. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, sorry for the long wait, but -- MR. RICHARDS: It is what it is. Page 113 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's it. Can you tell us why you are in front of us today to I assume talk about your case? MR. RICHARDS: Well, I decided to build myself a pool. Much to my chagrin, when I got finished with that pool they told me I needed a fence. I don't want a fence. I don't want to be caged in. So I tried to find an alternate way. And it just isn't -- I could have got a pool cover that you could park a Harley Davidson on, but because it didn't meet some ridiculous code that I could get someone to verify, I couldn't do it. They're worried about somebody falling into my pool. To the west end of my property I have 660 feet of fence. To the east end of my property I have 660 feet of impenetrable woods. To the south end of my property I have 180 feet of impenetrable woods. Who's going to fall in my pool? I don't feel I need a pool (sic). The pool is elevated three feet off the ground. Putting that aside, I realized I had to get a fence done. So I inquired to a couple of different contractors who told me they wanted 55 to $6,000, which is ridiculous. There was no way I was going to be able to afford that. So I came here and tried to work with people. Between not getting any calls back, which none of them do -- well, unless 10 minutes is sufficient -- I got nowhere. They recommended me fencing in my entire property. I don't want to be caged. I'm not an animal. You know, I just don't want to be caged. I don't want to sit in my pool and look at a fence. That's not what I came here for. But nonetheless, we couldn't meet an agreement. I came here to renew the permit initially. They told me, you know, get your pool -- get your fence permit, update your -- whatever the last final was. I had all my inspections done, they're all cleared. Everything was perfect except for the fence. You know, get your pool finaled and then you can at your leisure get the fence done. That's what they tell me here. Page 114 June 28, 2012 But when the inspector come out, he had a whole different variation of what he wanted done. He wasn't going to give me anything until the fence was done. Well, I can't do the fence right now. I just can't. I wasn't financially capable of doing it. So getting no assistance from the three or four different people that had my case throughout the two or three years it's been, I reached out to a family member to someone I can call. And I'm not going to mention his name because I'm not quite positive that the person I called was the person that called me back. But the person that called me back basically ridiculed me, laughed in my face and made me feel like a piece of garbage, stating that it's my own fault for not getting a fence done to begin with. That's one of these code enforcement professionals which basically sent me over the edge. If that's the way that these people are going to treat me, I'm going to give it right back to them. And I did, and then some, I will admit that. So the newest person comes in and she says, you know, I had some hearing down there on Airport Road, and when I got there she basically told me I don't need to be there. These fines are going to follow the property, they have nothing to do with you. Because the house is in limbo. I don't want to say it's in foreclosure. You know, I don't know what's going on. I know Bank of America tried to issue me documents stating that they're my lienholder, but yet they can't prove they're my lienholder. So they tried to foreclose on me. They found the documents that they used as my lienholder were fraudulent, so that never happened. They gave me a loan modification, they backed out of the loan modification. I paid them $10,000. I mean, I've just been blowing through money, you know. In the interim of all this, I lost my father, my wife lost her father. And at the end of the day we get this company called Carter Fence that shows up at my door. Well, let me put it this way: Page 115 June 28, 2012 When someone came and knocked on my door, my wife answered it, the man said, "I'm code enforcement and I need to look at your pool." And this was in the evening. Code enforcement wasn't even open. So I went to the front door to greet this gentleman and he wasn't there. So I went to my back door and I find this guy measuring my pool. So I asked him if I could be of assistance. And he says, "Oh, I'm from Carter Fence." "Oh, you are? Well, I thought I just overheard you tell my wife you were from code enforcement." "Oh, no, I'm here for code enforcement." But that's not what he told her. So I immediately escorted him off my property. If you're going to lie to my wife to gain access to my property, that's unacceptable to me. So Carter Fence apparently sent another gentleman out who was much more courteous. I spoke to him. I allowed him on my property to do his estimate. This is what the estimate was supposed to be that I agreed to. Now like I said, when I was getting my estimates they were $5,500. This guy, I think his name was Al, gave me an estimate of $1,540 which I found really reasonable. Who can argue with that right? He was going to do exactly what I wanted him to do. Fine, let's do it. Let's get it done. So I called whatever inspector was -- person was handling my case at the time again and told him, you know, I'll just have him do it right now, get it over with. "Well, I don't know, I've got to talk to my supervisor." Never got a call back. Next thing I know, I've got people all over my front yard, parking their trucks in the middle of my front yard looking to put a fence up. I have no idea what they're doing. I mean, I know what they're there for, but I don't know what they're doing. So I objected to it, almost to the point of leaving in handcuffs. Page 116 June 28, 2012 And, you know, I got everything right here. Fence to be -- to go on elevated deck, core drill concrete. Well, that's not what they did. They put this ridiculous ugly fence around my pool. It's pathetic. And not only did they do that, they put the fence post right where the switch is to turn on my pool light, right directly in front of it. Now, if you look at that and follow the line down into the ground, you can see that my electrical wire is going to be there. I mean, anybody can see that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me interrupt you. This is, I'm assuming, not done by code enforcement. MR. RICHARDS: Yes, it was. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It was done by a hired contractor to abate the safety violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RICHARDS: So I don't know if it was Ms. Perez. Are you Ms. Perez? You are. You're the one that promised to call me, right. So she's the last one to get the brunt of all of this. And that's really unfortunate. But the fact of the matter is, she didn't do much better. Promised me she was going to get everybody together and we were going to figure this out, and she must have organized three, four, five different people, five different organizations to come to my house. And 10 minutes before they're supposed to get there, she calls me, oh, by the way, see you in 10 minutes. That was April 13th. That was my daughter's birthday. And I had just far too many things to do. So I sent them packing. If you're not going to give me any respect, I'm not going to give you any. So now I'm stuck with this ridiculous fence that not only was installed incorrectly, it's blocking the switch for my pool. Which if she would have called me back would have been done two weeks prior to them doing it. But I guess her supervisor didn't get back to me so of course no one -- supervisor didn't get back to her so of course nobody got back to me. And here we have this -- Page 117 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: -- ridiculous fence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm looking at the order here for the imposition of fines and it goes back quite a while, back to December of 2011 -- back to November of 2011. And it's a hefty amount, obviously. Are you aware of that? MR. RICHARDS: Well, when I was supposed to be at the last hearing which I stated earlier, on Airport Road, the code enforcement officer told me that I shouldn't be concerned with these fines, they're going to follow the property, not me. In other words, if Bank of America foreclosed, they would have to deal with this, not me. Because I still wasn't financially capable of doing anything. After Bush left office, the world stopped for three months. I didn't have any business for three months. It took a long time to come back from that. Not to mention the two deaths, traveling back and forth to New York between my wife, my kids, myself. You know, I've only just completed my father's will, last week, actually. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, let me bring it to the Board for discussion, see if anybody wants to make a motion. MR. RICHARDS: In fact, the only thing that I was actually aware that I was set to pay was the $1,500 bill that they sent me for the fence, which is what I was here to refuse to pay, because the fence wasn't installed correctly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a couple of comments. One comment is the operational cost of$82.29. Typically in our order we ask that they be paid within 30 days. That hasn't even been paid. So -- MR. RICHARDS: I wasn't aware of it, sir, I'm sorry. But nonetheless, go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: I've been on this board for 10 plus years and Page 118 June 28, 2012 it's very clear when we make our order, and you've sat in front of-- you're the very last one. And every single time we mention the operational cost be paid within 30 days. So we make that very clear to the respondents. It hasn't been paid. The county even had to go in and abate the fine -- or abate the issue. It just seems -- MR. RICHARDS: Well, you know, I look at it this way: If the county's not going to work with me, why should I work with them? I mean, if they're not going to return my phone calls when I need to know different things of what's happening, because I have no clue. I really don't. But if I can't get them to call me back, how can you expect me to abide by anything they want me to do? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask the county: Is this in -- since it was abated by the county, is this in compliance now? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Well, we hired a contractor to put a fence in to abate any kind of safety issue at this point. I can't say -- it was permitted and C.O.'d as a fence. However, I cannot say if the fence is good enough to obtain the pool permit at this time. I'm not sure. We just went with the lowest bidder just to, you know, make sure there wasn't any kind of safety violation. MS. FLAGG: What he's saying is no, it's not in compliance. The pool doesn't have a permit yet. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Right. The fence -- MR. RICHARDS: The pool doesn't have a CO yet. I have all documents for everything else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe that you're correct in what you said or you were told, that fines go with the property. If you're unable to satisfy your bank that's holding the mortgage on the property and the property goes to somebody else, the fine stays with the property, which would stay with Bank of America or whoever it is. So as far as that is concerned, I agree with what you said and what the county said. Having said that, is there a motion that we have from the Board Page 119 June 28, 2012 relative to closing this case out? MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think we have a choice but to impose the fine, as this has not been abated. He has not received a certificate of completion for the pool. And I think we should impose the fines and hopefully he can go down and get a final certificate of completion. MR. HUDSON: So if I understand it, the county was just abating the public safety issue, right, of the pool not having a fence, right? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. There was a temporary barrier up there at one point. I believe it fell down. And we just abated the safety issue. The pool still remains un -- MR. RICHARDS: The temporary barrier was virtually impossible to keep in place. I mean, I did everything I could. Living out in the Estates, especially where I am, there's just about a thunderstorm every single evening. I mean, I was on the thing every day at least twice a week, replacing the whole thing. It just got tedious and expensive. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. HUDSON: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One opposed. It carries with 5-1 opposed. You can work with the county to see how you can get this resolved now. I don't think code enforcement is going to bother you. Page 120 June 28, 2012 Just to let you know that the fines continue to accrue. Try working with the county to see what you can do to resolve the situation. That's the only thing I can -- MR. RICHARDS: The only thing that's going to resolve the situation is if they remove this fence and put it back properly or put it in properly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that's a discussion that you're going to have to have with them going forward. We've done the only thing we can do. So I'm sorry you had to wait so long. MR. RICHARDS: It pretty much got me nowhere. It left me with an agency that I couldn't get to cooperate with me for all these years and now you expect me to -- that they're going to do it now? I just -- I don't get it. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now back to the agenda. All right, do we have any new business? We're up to reports. MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good afternoon. MS. FLAGG: Just to give you -- what we did this time is I asked them to give me the last five months, January through May, of the stats, just to give you an idea of how it's going. So for the past five months there's been 3,677 code cases open. There's been 1. 1,856 property inspections completed. 1,787 cases closed with voluntary compliance, meaning that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There were 11 -- MS. FLAGG: -- 856 property inspections in five months. Of the cases closed with voluntary compliance, meaning that the individual worked with the investigator and brought the property into compliance before it needed to go to a hearing, there were 295 Code Enforcement Board and special magistrate orders issued. There were 462 liens filed. There were 101 liens released. So as -- even though they're filed, then we go to the Board on the community member's behalf and ask that -- once they come into compliance -- and ask that Page 121 June 28, 2012 the BCC waive the fines pursuant to resolution and release the lien. There were 225 bankruptcy documents received during these five months. And what we are seeing is due to the economy and the foreclosures that are continuing, we're seeing more and more bankruptcy -- we're receiving more and more bankruptcy documents. And just as a clarification, there was a recent article about a home that had been abandoned, the neighbors didn't know that there was actually someone who had broken into the home that was living there, even though they were living right next door. Because as soon as that is brought to our attention, we work with law enforcement to address that situation. However that home, we did have an open case on that home. But at the point that that bankruptcy document is filed, by law we have to stop and we can't do anything with that case until that case is released by court. We can -- if it's a health and safety issue we can petition the court to give us a right to address it, even though it's in bankruptcy. In that particular case it was on our radar, it was on our community caretaking list, but bankruptcy documents had been filed so we were waiting for the court to release that house so we could go ahead and take care of the nuisance abatement violations that existed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that in Pine Ridge? MS. FLAGG: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm familiar with it. MS. FLAGG: The homes, as we've talked before, are all over the county. They're not restricted to one area of our community. They're -- you know, they're all over: North Naples, East Naples, the Estates, Immokalee. They're everywhere. In that five-month period we also completed 3,160 lien searches. And as you know, lien searches, people ask for a lien search through the partnership agreement with Naples Area Board of Realtors to see if there are any code violations on property. During that five-month period 135 lien searches were found to have code violations. Page 122 June 28, 2012 So you, through this partnership, prevented 135 people from buying a home that had a code violation and not knowing about it. And then the average time from complaint to completion of the initial inspection is averaging three days. Which in light of the number of cases that each of the investigators are carrying is pretty significant. But that's one of the things that we focus on, because if there is a health and safety, we reprioritize and seek to address those. Also, I will tell you that one of our supervisors, Supervisor Patti Petrulli, retired. And following her retirement Mr. Joe Mucha was promoted to supervisor, who you saw him today. And then just as a reminder, any time that you do impose fines that we do, once the property does come into compliance, we go to the Board of County Commissioners on their behalf. The Board has passed a resolution that determines how the fines are waived. And the Board has waived over $8 million in fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. The Board would like to thank you for sending us the dividers that we now have. MS. FLAGG: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We did have one complaint from a person who is color blind and can't see the numbers. Right, Jim? MR. LAVINSKI: Other than that, they work fine. I just can't see them. MS. FLAGG: You can thank Jen and her folks, they took care of it for you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. We appreciate it. MR. DOINO: Thanks, Jen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next meeting is July 26th. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. Page 123 June 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seconded. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :00 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD • B R-"V i M •, N, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board or3u , as p resented V or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 124 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME NAME OF OA(�1D,COUN..L,C 4,AMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS Ch✓(5 !� c,i �' �--v�.\(.,V(: k-v-`c�' TL + (� C C THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 5 1 i'i � ✓\ ' J - 'LA:. WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY , CO N ❑CITY ❑COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY A1 G,( li (e.c- r-L. 60/ ( le . NAME OF POLITICAL FUBD VISION: C t.,1 1 1 �t/ DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCUFjRE (/� rj� /// 2 MY POSITION IS: ❑ ELECTIVE ❑ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency)by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative;or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I. � ( 5 VI,hereby disclose that on 1p 2 g ,20 ( z; (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • ,) inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, • inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Ib ese --ff � avt 0 c Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS 1 i ':::-:-..-:3_ 2 /vvZ 4 THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON C WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY ❑CITY ,...‘FrODUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY /�/X 2,- ( l'---L- NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED ( C..)C..G�� /r-- SUN£ `" ZS' 0C-)•0C-)/ MY POSITION IS: ❑ ELECTIVE „17-,gPp01NTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city,or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency)by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative;or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting;and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST eR�, hereby disclose that on ,20 / (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: / o c) cJ }`.� 3 ,4,i s RIX r ) ( 2-- Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2