Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/26/2012 R July 26, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, July 26, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino James Lavinski Kenneth Kelly (Excused) Gerald Lefebvre (Excused) Larry Miesczak (Excused) Ronald Doino (Excused) Chris Hudson (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Colleen Crawley, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, CEB Attorney Page 1 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision by 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 upon which the appeal is based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Roll call. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly, Mr. Larry Miesczak, Mr. Gerald Lefebvre, Mr. Ronald Doino, Jr., and Mr. Chris Hudson all have excused absences for today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We feel lonesome, but we'll carry on. We do have a quorum. Do we have any changes in the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under No. 4, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, motion for extension of time. We have Page 2 July 26, 2012 one addition. It will be No. 2 from imposition of fines, Michael and Amy Facundo, Case CESD20100006940. Under Letter B, stipulations, we have three stipulations. The first will be No. 7 from hearings, Steven J. Martarano, Case CENA20120003 516; the second will be Case No. 8 from hearings, which was an addition to this agenda, and it is Roger and Tammy Macauley, Case CESD20120002439; the third will be No. 4 from hearings, Miriam H. Montes De Oca, Case CESD20110011822. Under Letter C, hearings, No. 5, Case CESD20110006729, Jason Nardella, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CESD20110017156, Ronnie G. and Beverly J. Bishop, has been withdrawn. And then we did have the addition of No. 8 to the agenda, which was Case CESD20120002439, Roger and Tammy Macauley, which has been moved to stipulations. Under No. 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 9, Case CESD20120003258, Integrity First CR Services, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion to accept the changes? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the changes. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 3 July 26, 2012 Okay. Approval of the minutes? Can we get a motion to approve the minutes, or any changes in the minutes? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries. The minutes are approved. Which brings us to motions for extension of time. You're on, Jen. MS. BAKER: The first one will be Serafin Riveron, Jr., and Carida O. Menendez, Case CESD20110012707. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. RIVERON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're asking for an extension of time. Can you give us some background? MR. RIVERON: Yes, sir. My name is Serafin, and I have a schedule of events that we have done since October. I don't know if you guys have it. They have it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We do. MR. RIVERON: Okay. So, I mean, it's basically in the county's hands, and I'm trying to get more time so we could finish this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. There was 120 days that was Page 4 July 26, 2012 granted in April. MR. RIVERON: Yes, sir. I thought that was plenty and sufficient, but it's been going back and forth, and my contractor -- you know, he gave me this, and we're just going back and forth with the county right now to get the permits, still. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And from the county? MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse. We have no objections to the extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how much time do you think you would need to get everything done? MR. RIVERON: I would have thought that we had the 120 days, and now I don't know how long we still need. I mean, I wish I could do this tomorrow, but -- I wish I could get the most so I don't have to be coming here. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What does your contractor suggest? Has he made a suggestion? MR. RIVERON: He said 60 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What does the county suggest? MR. MUSSE: Sixty days is fine. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that we grant the citizen 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Exactly what I was going to say. I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have 90 days. MR. RIVERON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So do the same thing. After 90 days, Page 5 July 26, 2012 it's not done, come back before the end of the 90 days so that we can address the issue. MR. RIVERON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MUSSE: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next two cases kind of go hand in hand, so I'll call them both together. Anthony DiNorcia, Sr., LLC, Case 2007100236, and Anthony DiNorcia, Sr., LLC, Case CELU20100022151. MR. DiNORCIA: Good morning, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DiNORCIA: Gentlemen, I'd like to bring you up to what we have done so far, if I can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. DiNORCIA: The first thing, we obtained the CO for the main building that was -- seemed like the sticking point to the building requirements. But that's been permitted and a CO is obtained. We got plans as built from Mario Lamendola the other day done for the additional areas that need to be permitted. We retained the engineer for the new site plan because some of the changes need to be done from the original site plan that were supposedly not necessary. So that's being done. We retained the engineer. We retained a landscape architect, Mr. Wayne Hook to work on the new -- changing some of the landscaping requirements. We had to get an up-to-date survey, and we found out that the neighbor's fence is really on our property. And we're having that removed so that Mr. Hook can re -- use those trees and stuff as our landscaping. We removed all the exotics on our property. So we've done all of that, but we still need about another 120 days mainly because of the SDP requirement. So I'd like to ask for another 120 days. Page 6 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the county says? MR. BOX: No objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No objection? MR. BOX: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion from the board, or any questions? MR. MARINO: Is 120 days enough? MR. DiNORCIA: I think so, according to the engineer. We got all the plans done. I would -- I hope so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if it's not enough you'll come back, as you've done today, and we'll discuss it at that time. MR. DiNORCIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a motion to grant 120 days? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we grant 120 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DiNORCIA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Now, do we have to vote on each one separately? MS. RAWSON: Yeah. Just for the record, this is 120 days for each, so there's two different orders. So, yeah, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that one was the case number ending in 236, okay. And we need the motion and a vote on the motion for the case ending 151. Page 7 July 26, 2012 MR. MARINO: Do you want a vote on that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll make the second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: The next case will be Michael and Amy Facundo. Case CESD20100006940. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was a -- was this on the imposition that's been moved? MS. BAKER: Yes. It was No. 2 on imposition. MR. FACUNDO: Hi, good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you give us -- MR. FACUNDO: Michael Facundo. This has been a long journey for me. This process had started a while back, and this is my second time coming and asking for an extension approximately six months or -- what would that be, 180 days or so. And I don't know if you guys remember my original letter, if it's part of the enclosure, when my contractor basically bailed on me, couldn't finish the job because he had built the house within the 3-foot setback. I rectified that and fixed it out of my own pocket. And -- well, I had a drafter, and he was drawing it, and on March the 14th the codes changed, and so he, since then, says look -- he Page 8 July 26, 2012 didn't really want to put a lot of time into it and get it done, so I had to let him go, and I got a new guy that's making this work with a structural guy to get it all wrapped up. And so we're making progress in getting it done. We're probably in -- revising to the new building codes. That's really -- it's a combination of a few things that's sort of prolonged this. And so once that's completed, we're ready to go ahead and submit. I met with him last Friday, talked to him, and he's probably about 80 percent completed with the revisions. And so, hopefully, that's -- once that gets reviewed and the structure guy looks at it, signs and seals it, get everything, we'll be able to submit and hopefully begin the process. I've got, obviously, the bank knocking on my door, and I've got, you know, obviously, the county, you know, wanting me to finish this, which -- it's my personal home and my investment that my wife and I have put into this, and so I've got to finish it. And so that's where we're at. And just -- and given the economic times and people get pressured to do things and, you know -- and that's where we're at right now. So I'm asking for an extension is what I'm asking for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're asking for 180 days extension. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir, because what's happening is I have a slab and some walls up, so it's not like it's an addition. This is a whole complete house that I'm trying to finish where my family will be living in. So that's why I'm asking for that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The original order on this was November of 2010. MR. FACUNDO: Yes. That's -- if that's what it says there, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, long time ago. And at that time 180 days was granted -- MR. FACUNDO: Right. Page 9 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- as an extension, which came up on May 13, 2011. So it's been a long time. Let's see what the county has to say. MR. WALKER: We would rather defer to you, sir, in reference to how you would proceed. We won't object to anything you decide. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go. MR. MARINO: You said there was a slab and some walls up? MR. FACUNDO: Yeah. It's just some block walls. They started, you know, when the contractor started. Again, he built it -- that setback. It's been -- you know, I fixed that, my own expense. I got that rectified. So it's not a lot of walls. Well, yeah, there's the exterior walls, but part of it is not developed, obviously, or erected because, obviously, I've got to pull a permit. MR. MARINO: So there's no roof on the building? MR. FACUNDO: No, sir. There's no roof on the building. MR. MARINO: How big is the house? MR. FACUNDO: Top end, it's probably going to be about 2,600 square feet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a building permit on it now? MR. FACUNDO: No. My original contractor should have pulled one. So right now there's not one there, I don't think, or it's expired. I don't know. Give you a true answer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if we go back to November of 2010 -- MR. FACUNDO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- the original case, this was a structure that was being built without a building permit; is that correct? MR. FACUNDO: No, no, no, no, no. I had a contractor. I Page 10 July 26, 2012 pulled a permit to fix all that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not a contractor. MR. FACUNDO: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Building permit. MR. FACUNDO: Yeah, we should have had a building permit, absolutely. We even got a building permit to fix what the -- within the setback. I have that -- I don't have it with me, but I have, you know, where we pulled a permit to fix the setback, absolutely. MR. WALKER: Yeah. The actual original building permit had expired, and that was one of the reasons why the case came before me as an investigator when I went by and seen the structure that had been there for quite a long time. And when I went to investigate whether or not the permits were still active, they had at that time expired. When we brought this case before the board for a hearing, what was necessary was that he again reactivate or initiate the permits again in order to complete the work that needed to be done to the house, because it was at a dead standstill, and the permits had actually expired for the construction of the home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No building permit exists today? MR. WALKER: Today -- the actual permit expires. He had a permit, and the permit expired as of, I think it is, November -- not November -- of June, it expired, which was a permit that was originally -- there was actually a permit to correct the actual setbacks, which he was initially given 180 days to do, which he did, and he got that completed. After the completion of that, there was an additional 180 days after that -- during that first order which he had to complete things, which he didn't do. That permit has expired, or that time frame has expired under that permit. So currently there is no active permit due to the fact that the permit is expired. MR. MARINO: You said it expired in June. Is that June of this Page 11 July 26, 2012 year? MR. WALKER: Yes. The extended permit expired, yes. Let me check just to make sure. Yes, that's correct. The actual permit that was there existing now is now expired. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What I see here is a case that came before us for an extension of time -- excuse me -- an extension of time but originally was coming before the board for the imposition of the fines. We're not here to rehear the case, which was heard in the past. MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It seems to me that from 2010 -- I understand there was an encroachment on the property; that encroachment was resolved by what? You contacted the people next -- they had to move a fence; is that it? MR. FACUNDO: No, no, no, sir; it's much more than that. I had to remove the whole footing wall that the contractor built three feet within the setback. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So your contractor put the footprint into an area within the boundary? MR. FACUNDO: Within -- 3 feet within the setback. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FACUNDO: And we had to knock -- I had to knock that down. I no longer have him. I found another new contractor that's going to do this, and I fixed that on my own. I mean, I hired a contractor to do it, but it came out of-- I paid out of my pocket to do that. And so we're right there to get started and move on with this. Again, it's just things that are beyond my control when people are not following what they're supposed to do in regards to getting stuff done regarding the plans. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unfortunately, that is -- that's -- MR. FACUNDO: Yeah, I know. That's my headache. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's your headache, right. Page 12 July 26, 2012 MR. FACUNDO: And I'm here, actually, to ask for an extension because I need to finish this. I don't know what else to do it is what I'm saying. MR. L'ESPERANCE: There is no swimming pool correct, sir? MR. FACUNDO: No, there's no swimming pool. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How much time -- I mean, if you were to purchase a brand new piece of property, apply for a building permit, and build a house, that's probably the position that you're in today. MR. FACUNDO: In a nutshell. I mean, that's not actual, but I guess, hypothetically, I would say yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The slab that's there, is that going to be able to be reused for -- MR. FACUNDO: Oh, yes, sir, absolutely. That's what's going to save me money. If it wasn't -- if it wasn't -- trust me, I would have -- you know, I -- it's going to be reused is what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If the county has no objection, I guess it becomes a -- for the board to decide either to grant some time or to deny. So I'm looking for direction from the board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I put forth a motion to grant the individual 180 days as requested. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 13 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries. You have 180 days. MR. FACUNDO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And hopefully we won't see you back here. MR. FACUNDO: Oh, trust me, that's what I'm shooting for, Robert. So I appreciate that. Thank you for understanding. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FACUNDO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. WALKER: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be under stipulations. It was No. 7 from hearings. Steven J. Martarano, Case CENA20120003516. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Therefore, it's agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by removing all litter to a site intended for final disposal or store desired items within a completely enclosed structure within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Page 14 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What's the nature of the debris that's there? MR. BALDWIN: Construction debris, mostly large rocks and construction debris. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it will take 60 days to get it moved? MR. BALDWIN: He's working on it right now; that's why he's not here, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion to approve the stipulation as written? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. And a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second by Mr. L'Esperance. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be No. 8 from hearings, Roger and Tammy Macauley, Case CESD20120002439. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of$81 .72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Page 15 July 26, 2012 Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abasement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. MACAULEY: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Do you have any comments on the stipulation? MR. MACAULEY: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You think 180 days is sufficient time to -- MR. MACAULEY: For now, sir. My wife and I are both currently laid off. We're scheduled to go back to work in October, November. We should be able to -- we'll give it our best to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was a garage conversion? MR. MACAULEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you do the conversion, or was it something that you bought? MR. MACAULEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. McGONAGLE: Sir, if I may? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. McGONAGLE: There's a number of other things that are there also. There is a three-car garage, a single reroof, and the garage Page 16 July 26, 2012 conversion; all three had permits, but they were never CO'ed. There is also an 8-by-38 addition to the home, a wooden fence, and three accessory structures were added to the property without obtaining any permits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sounds like you've been busy. MR. MACAULEY: That was a long time ago that all this was done. Financially, I couldn't afford to put a nail in the fence today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MACAULEY: I'm asking for time to correct all of this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion from the board to accept the stipulation as written? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm concerned about 180 days. Do you think that's sufficient? MR. MACAULEY: I don't know, but I'm going to give it the best I can. As speaking with the building inspectors, as long as I show progress -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if it's not sufficient, Mr. Macauley, you can come back to the board and ask for an extension at that time showing some -- MR. MACAULEY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- activity towards getting it completed. MR. MARINO: You say you're going back when, you think? MR. MACAULEY: We're hopefully going back by October. My wife works at Cypress Woods Country Club, and they're remodeling right now, so she got laid off. MR. MARINO: I know that for a fact. MR. MACAULEY: And it's tough. Mr. Marino, I've worked for you in the past part time. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a Page 17 July 26, 2012 second? MR. MARINO: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MACAULEY: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you don't get it done within 180 days, don't wait till -- MR. MACAULEY: I won't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- Day 179 to come back. Come back to prior to that. MR. MACAULEY: I won't. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Marino, I'm hoping you're telling me that you don't have a conflict? MR. MARINO: I just mentioned that to Lionel, that I didn't recognize him until he just said that he worked for me. I don't have a conflict with that if you don't have a conflict with it. I did not recognize him. It must have been -- MR. MACAULEY: That was a long time ago. MR. MARINO: Yeah. It must have been years ago. MS. RAWSON: Well, because -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: What's your recommendation? MS. RAWSON: Well, here's the problem. We only have four of Page 18 July 26, 2012 you, and that's the quorum. We didn't have a hearing, we didn't enter any evidence, really. It's a stipulated agreement. I didn't hear any comments coming from you, Mr. Marino. You didn't recognize him, and you don't remember him, and in your mind if there's no conflict because, you know, we don't want to have to put this off till next month, if-- I guess we should probably ask the respondent if he thinks there's a conflict. MR. MACAULEY: I don't think there's a conflict. It's been, like, six years, and I worked for him two days. MR. MARINO: Yeah. Like I say, I don't even recognize him, and I have a lot of people that have been in and out, so -- MS. RAWSON: Okay. MR. MARINO: -- I don't feel -- MS. RAWSON: Well, as long as the record reflects that neither one of you believes that there's a conflict of interest and there was a stipulated agreement entered into by the respondent and the county, then we'll go with it. MR. MACAULEY: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Okay. The next case under stipulations was No. 4 from hearings, Miriam H. Montes De Oca, Case CESD20110011822. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DE OCA: Good morning. MR. CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours Page 19 July 26, 2012 of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Do you have any comments? MR. DE OCA: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you agree to the stipulation? MR. DE OCA: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the timing, you should be able to complete everything that's required in the time allocated? MR. DE OCA: Yes, I'll give it my best. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a stipulation (sic) from the board to accept the stipulation as written? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. DE OCA: Thank you. MR. CONDOMINA: Thank you. MR. DE OCA: Good day. MS. BAKER: The next case will be from Letter C, hearings, No. Page 20 July 26, 2012 1, Case CESD20100007042, Kirk Sanders. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of ordinance Florida Building Code 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and 2.02.03. Description of violation: Approximately 12 mobile homes were installed with several additions added to the mobile homes consisting of carports, screen porches, roof-overs, and living space below flood level with electrical and plumbing without first obtaining all required building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 2280 Pineland Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112; Folio Numbers 56150200005 and 56150520002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Kirk N. Sanders, P.O. Box 2481, Naples, Florida, 34106. Date violation first observed: June 8, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 1, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 29, 2010. Date of reinspection: May 11, 2011 . Results of reinspection: Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. SCAVONE: Good morning. Michelle Scavone, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This case was heard before the Code Enforcement Board on July 28, 2011 . The respondent requested a rehearing from a higher court, and it was granted; thus we are here today for a rehearing. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. This is going to -- MS. BAKER: There are a lot of exhibits, so I'm not sure you want us to name them all right now; if you just want to accept the Page 21 July 26, 2012 county's exhibit as a whole. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those? MS. SCAVONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We need a motion to accept those exhibits. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we accept the exhibits. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. A site visit was made on June 8, 2010. It was observed that several mobile homes had additions and alterations such as the sheds, fences, carports, porches, roof-overs. Extensive research was conducted. No permits were found for any of the additions or alterations. Notice of Violation was mailed certified receipt on September 29, 2010. Several meetings and phone conversations have been conducted with the property owner, Mr. Sanders, explaining what the violations were and how to correct them. In conclusion, the permit is basically a permitting case, and per Collier County Ordinance 2010-04, Article IV, Section 9, notice shall be given to the property owner as listed on the tax collector's. County policy, basically, is building permits cannot be issued to anyone other than the property owner or general contractors hired by the property owner. And at this time the violation does remain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 22 July 26, 2012 MR. BOATMAN: Thank you, good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BOATMAN: I'm sorry. MS. SCAVONE: That's okay. May I present some of the evidence that was shown before? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. One is the state definitions, Florida Statute, Title 33, regulations of trade, Section 513.04, definitions, just explaining what an operator is and that they are -- of a mobile home, lodging, or recreational park. Permittee means a person who applies for and is granted permits under the chapter and who is ultimately responsible for the operation of the mobile home, lodging, or recreational vehicle park. The next one, B, what a recreational vehicle is; temporary living quarters for recreational camping, traveling. Under county definitions, the Land Development Code, 1.08.02. Again, just pointing out just what some of the definitions of recreational vehicle, temporary living accommodations, again. The next page. MR. BOATMAN: Pardon me. May I make an inquiry, please? In terms of the introduction of evidence, am I to object contemporaneously when she presents specific evidence? Because there was an entire package of materials that was handed to you that was ostensibly made a record in a prior hearing, and the representation was that we are on rehearing. And if we were, I could not object to that which the board has already considered; however, we are not here on a rehearing. There was an appeal filed, and there was a stipulation to withdraw the prior order, and so we're -- if we are here at a new hearing, then I want to specifically object to the information coming in as it's offered. And so I just wanted to have clarification on that, because that took me -- Page 23 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you identify yourself first. MR. BOATMAN: Yes, sir. My name is Jim Boatman. I'm an attorney here locally, and I represent Mr. Sanders. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOATMAN: So I wanted to get some clarification on that. And I really hated to interrupt her presentation, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's okay. MR. BOATMAN: -- this is my first time before the board, and I'm going to stumble over some protocols, and I apologize. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not a problem. Jean, is this coming back to us as a brand new case now? MS. RAWSON: You know, I didn't see the Circuit Court order. Mr. Boatman has told you that there was a stipulation to withdraw the original order and that it's a new hearing, not a rehearing. So, you know, let's see what the county says about that. Is it a new hearing, or is it a rehearing? Since we aren't at the Circuit Court. MR. BOATMAN: See -- if I may just give some context. What occurred was that my client had requested a continuance. He did -- then did not come and appear at the hearing. You decided to proceed in absentia. The argument on the appeal was that it was a deprivation of his due process. And as we discussed the merits of the appeal -- and I was not the appellate attorney, and I have come after that resolution -- the determination was made by the county that they didn't want to fight the fight in the Circuit Court and they would basically hit the reset button and come back here and have the hearing. So it's not a rehearing. The last hearing there was a deprivation of due process, so we should be starting at ground zero. That was my understanding with regard to what today is. And that shouldn't change a whole lot, but it's going to change my response to certain evidence that either was already in, because this is a rehearing, or has not yet come in because the prior hearing has basically been nullified. Page 24 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Kitchell. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: I do so swear. And not to my knowledge, I -- I won't contest what counsel's saying. It's a hearing. To my knowledge, most of this evidence has not been submitted before. A lot of this is new evidence, which could be construed as a new hearing. It's a new hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SNOW: It's a new hearing. That's from Jeff Wright, so there's no issue there. MS. RAWSON: Well, then back to Mr. Boatman's original request. He wants to have the right to object to certain pieces of evidence. And so, in light of that, I think that probably it would be easier, since Ms. Baker told us there's a lot of evidence, that the county present the evidence one at a time so Mr. Boatman has a right to object to it. MR. BOATMAN: Thank you. I would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Do you want to start back from the beginning? MR. BOATMAN: Yes, sir. That would be very helpful. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. These are definitions that the county is providing right now? MS. SCAVONE: Correct. MR. BOATMAN: So with regard to the packet of materials that you initially tendered, that is not in evidence then? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're starting at square one. MR. BOATMAN: Square one? MS. SCAVONE: Correct. MR. BOATMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCAVONE: Florida Statute, Title 23, Section 320.01, definitions. Page 25 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a problem with that one? MR. BOATMAN: I do not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Next? MS. SCAVONE: Okay. Title -- Florida Statute, Title 33, Section 513.01, definitions, operator. MR. BOATMAN: For the record, I have no objection to any statute or rule being tendered as evidence. So I have no objection to that. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. We're going to go to the county definitions then. Did you want me to -- MR. BOATMAN: I have no objection to those -- MS. SCAVONE: Okay. MR. BOATMAN: -- being submitted. MS. SCAVONE: I've just got a little shuffle for a minute. Okay. Florida Building -- Florida Code of Ordinance Section 2.2004, general definitions of what a violator is. That basically is the property owner. MR. BOATMAN: No objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SCAVONE: Code of Ordinance Chapter 62. MR. BOATMAN: No objection. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. Do you want me to read these? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to just throw them up for -- MR. BOATMAN: If there's any ordinances or code recitations, I have no objection to their presentation to the county. I think they're a matter of public record. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. So -- MR. BOATMAN: I'm going to be objecting primarily to photographic-type evidence. MS. SCAVONE: State Statutes -- Page 26 July 26, 2012 MR. BOATMAN: No objection. MS. SCAVONE: -- 513.05, 513.065, 513.10, 513.112, 513.117, and 513.118. MR. BOATMAN: No objection. MS. SCAVONE: All right. The 513.05 is basically explaining the owner's responsibility for adopting rules pertaining to the park. 513.065 basically explains that citations must be issued to the permittee. MR. BOATMAN: Yeah. I'm not objecting to the submission of these. I may not agree with the interpretation of them. But no objection. MS. BAKER: Right. We just need to go through them so the board knows. MS. SCAVONE: 513.10, any person -- anyone who operates a mobile home park has first responsibility to obtain the permit before opening the park. 513.112 basically discusses the duty of the operation of the park, having to maintain and keep registers at all times of who's in the park. 513.117 establishes rules that are reasonable by the operator. 513.118, the operator may refuse accommodations to whom he does not want there. Okay. Mobile home manufacturing information booklet prepared by the Manufacturing Housing Section and Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Page 18. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's your first picture. No problem? MR. BOATMAN: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I was -- can we go back to that? Oh, oh. I have no objection. That's a part of that manual? MS. SCAVONE: Correct. MR. BOATMAN: No, no objection. MS. SCAVONE: And under Page 18, explaining about mobile Page 27 July 26, 2012 and manufactured home repairs and remodeling, additions, including, but not limited to, add a -- rooms, roof-overs, porches, shall be freestanding and self-supporting with only the flash attaching to the main unit unless the added unit has been designed to be marriage (sic) to the existing unit. All additions shall be constructed in compliance with state and locally adopted building codes, what I would like to point out. At Page -- also with Rule 15C-2.0081 under Florida Statute 1A, it says the same thing, additions shall be constructed in compliance with state and locally adopted building codes. Again, this is just showing about -- our local codes have the authority. Property appraiser's aerials from 1975, '85, '89, '94, and 2012. MR. BOATMAN: No objection. MS. SCAVONE: Aerial from 1975 shows the park on, basically, a diagonal spacing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are my eyes going bad, or is that fuzzy? MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's just you. The rest of us have no problem. MR. MARINO: Yeah, I don't have a problem with it. MS. SCAVONE: This was the first map that I was able to find. I wasn't able to find aerial sooner than that. 1985, still on a diagonal, and this is also showing that there were some alterations and additions made. 1989, 13 units. Now they are on a more permanent parking configuration. 1994, again, permanent parking configuration with additions and alterations showing. And 2012 is our current, showing that their parking is on a more permanent configuration with many additions and alterations. The Collier County zoning map. It's the current zoning of-- MR. BOATMAN: No objection. Page 28 July 26, 2012 MS. SCAVONE: -- C4. There's 37 photos of the structure on the property. Do you want me to go through each one of them? MR. BOATMAN: Yes. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. You can just show each one of them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What are we seeing, a picture of each unit now? MS. SCAVONE: You're going to see a picture of each unit with some porches, fences, sheds, add-ons, roof-overs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask a question. Are you saying that these are not in the park? Is that what you're saying? MR. BOATMAN: I'm objecting -- first of all, I would like to ask the witness to describe who took that photograph. MS. SCAVONE: I took that photograph. MR. BOATMAN: And is that photograph Unit 1, two twenty-eight eighty (sic) Pineland Avenue, Naples, Florida? MS. SCAVONE: Some of the units did not have the addresses on them, which is another -- MR. BOATMAN: The notice of hearing suggests the location of the violation is 2280 Pineland Avenue, Unit 1 . To your personal knowledge, do you know whether that's Unit 1 or not? MS. SCAVONE: I do not know. MR. BOATMAN: Okay. MS. SCAVONE: The notice of violation had the folio numbers listed on there as well, which is -- encompasses the entire property. MR. BOATMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What I'm interested in is are these units in the park or not? MR. BOATMAN: That unit is within the East Naples Park, mobile home park. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SCAVONE: Within the folio numbers listed on the notice Page 29 July 26, 2012 of violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOATMAN: That's right. And so I object to the submission of this photograph for the purpose of a determination of whether or not the use at the property is in conformance or not. The -- this notice of violation -- and this goes to my argument, but that is not relevant to Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sanders does not own that. The violator, if there is a violation, is the person who owns that unit. That's pursuant to Chapter 723. We don't hold the man accountable who's got just the pad there and the pedestal for building code violations of that unit. That's the main issue here. I'm not here to necessarily talk about each unit and whether there's violations. At the outside layer of this onion, we have some substantial due process issues. So the entire regime that's utilized by the State of Florida creates a situation where the Department of Health permits this piece of property that has pads and pedestals. They basically inspect them twice a year to make sure that his pads and pedestals are in place. And he gets violations, and he cleans them up. And he's been -- basically, this place has been operating like this since 1956, okay. It's only contracted. It's never expanded. And so if you're pointing out a mobile home that's sitting on a pad that he owns, he doesn't -- that's not his property. So why should he be here answering for that piece of property? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think you're arguing your case yet. We're trying to get into the display of the units that are there, whether they're in that park or not. MR. BOATMAN: Okay, sir. And so to the extent -- and so I won't belabor this objection next time, I'll have a standing objection to any photographic evidence that is of property not owned by my client. He owns that dirt that's sitting around there, but he doesn't own the thing which I think the county's primarily concerned about. And if Page 30 July 26, 2012 you're concerned about that thing, work with your Department of Health, and so -- code enforcement and Department of Health can get together, because the Department of Health can go violate that mobile home. So for that purpose, I would object, but I don't want to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not objecting to the fact that those units or these units we're about to see are all located in that mobile park? MR. BOATMAN: Within -- correct, I am not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So why don't you go through the pictures real quickly, and they'll be admitted as evidence. MR. BOATMAN: The only thing I would like to ask, sir, is I just want to get clarification as to what Unit 1 is, because there's been only one unit that was posted with this violation, and it was Unit 1. And so I want to make sure, even if we're going to disagree as to the implication of that, that we see a photograph of Unit 1 and we know which one it is when it comes -- that will be the question. So I would only ask the officer whether that is a picture of Unit 1, to your knowledge. MS. SCAVONE: Well, as I stated before, the folio numbers are listed on the notice of violation as that's the location of violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And all the folio numbers are unique to the individual units? MS. SCAVONE: No. It's -- there's two folio numbers; there's two properties that were joined by that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the folio number -- MS. SCAVONE: -- property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- includes all of those units that are built on it? MS. SCAVONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Could we go back to the first picture, first Page 31 July 26, 2012 exhibit? Can you do that? MS. BAKER: Which one? MR. MARINO: The first one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before that. Is that a 2 on the corner there? MR. MARINO: That's a 2 on the corner; is it not? MS. SCAVONE: That appears to be a 2. MR. MARINO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's go back one more, and maybe we'll find No. 1 . MS. BAKER: That is the first. MR. MARINO: That's the first one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That is the first one. MR. MARINO: That's the first one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There was actually a picture. MS. SCAVONE: After I submit the photographs, I can further explain that there have been changes in the park that -- from 1956, that some of the structures were not there as they are now. And, again, as I said, many of them do not have a number listed on the unit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOATMAN: Is this the second or the third photograph? MS. SCAVONE: This would be the -- MS. BAKER: This is the fourth page. MS. SCAVONE: Fourth page. MR. BOATMAN: Well, I was asking the second page of photographs, after unit -- or after the photograph that depicted the two, I had asked you a question that I think was pending, and that was, do you have personal knowledge whether that unit right there is Unit 1? MS. SCAVONE: No, I do not. MR. BOATMAN: Okay, thank you. I would object on the same basis I previously stated. MS. SCAVONE: Now, this is, you know, again, just showing Page 32 July 26, 2012 the roof-overs and additions, porches. MR. BOATMAN: Could -- are you -- like, what number -- these don't go in the order that you -- could you show me now again the pictures that have been submitted into evidence? Because it seemed like things were flashing, going. How many pages -- MS. BAKER: Five -- this is the fifth page. MR. BOATMAN: Yeah. I want to ask a question for each page, if that's okay. So right now I've asked two questions, so there's two that I've had objections for. So if we could go to the third page of pictures. That one we took care of. MS. BAKER: That's the third page. MR. BOATMAN: Yes, ma'am. So the next page. Okay. Before this is submitted, I would just like to ask you -- because I don't think you testified to anything about it previously. Do you have personal knowledge as to whether that's Unit 1? MS. SCAVONE: No. MR. BOATMAN: Okay, thank you. That's it. I have objection based on the articulation previously. Okay. Same question. MR. SNOW: If we may, can we stipulate that we don't have any knowledge of what's Unit 1, specifically, so we can move this forward? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. SNOW: Is that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. BOATMAN: Okay. So I have a standing objection to the pictures on the basis that they don't demonstrate Unit 1. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. SNOW: If I may clarify. We're not stating it doesn't represent Unit 1; that Unit 1 may not be identified strictly by the photographs. It may not have a number on it. That doesn't mean Unit 1 does not exist. We're just stating for these photographic evidence, Page 33 July 26, 2012 these are just examples of the additions that have been made in the park and the construction -- that illegal construction's been made without permits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. SNOW: That's all -- that's all we're doing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is, as far as objections are concerned at this point, these units are either in the park or they're not. That's what I would like to know. If you object to them being shown as evidence because they're not in the park, that's an objection I would like to hear. MR. BOATMAN: No. To my knowledge, and based upon the package that I've received, all of these units are, in fact, in the park; however, their owners aren't here. So that's the gist of my problem with the pictures. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOATMAN: Okay. MR. SNOW: Sir, for clarification, the owner of the park is here and the representative of the property that is responsible for the park is here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I assume, Mr. Snow, that that is the individual standing over here? MR. SNOW: That looks to be Mr. Sanders, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MARINO: So he owns the park. He owns the slabs. He does not own the individual units. And you're saying that he's not responsible for those units; is that what you're trying to say? Is that what we're trying to get to? MR. BOATMAN: Yes, sir. MR. MARINO: But he does own the park and manages the park and is responsible for the park? Page 34 July 26, 2012 MR. BOATMAN: There is a Florida Statute that sort of steers that analysis, but that's right. Our contention is, he does own one of the units in the park, but not all of the units in the park. MR. MARINO: But he owns the park, the property, the slabs -- MR. BOATMAN: The slabs. MR. MARINO: -- and doesn't own -- but he's responsible for the entire property and what goes on in the entire property. He's, like, the manager/owner, is that what it is? MR. BOATMAN: That's right, that's right. MR. MARINO: I need that clarification. So he it responsible for it, okay. MR. BOATMAN: Yeah. He operates under a state permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are we finished with the units or what? MS. SCAVONE: No. Can you bring the one -- the last one back. This is a bus that would not be under the definitions of a mobile home trailer that you would live in. Again, these are carports and porches without permits. Carports and permit -- without permits. Porches, no permits. Fence without a permit. Porches, carports, no permits. Fence. Again, same picture. There's porches without permits. Attachment to the back. That's one of the wider views of the park. And sheds without permits. That's, again, a wider view of the park road. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the extent of the photos that you have? MS. SCAVONE: For the photos, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SCAVONE: Also, into evidence, Collier County zoning ordinance from 1965. Basically, it's just to establish in history that permits were required on Page 28. Number 7 stating that a permit shall be required for installation of a mobile home or trailer and the construction of any structure, appendix thereto. It's just, again, like I Page 35 July 26, 2012 said, for history reasons that we've always required permits. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Who is responsible for obtaining that permit? MS. SCAVONE: The property owner. The next exhibit is the State of Florida health records. And, again, this is just for historical reasons, that it was the original permit for the application to operate a tourist trailer camp located at the East Naples Trailer Park, October 1965 -- I'm sorry, '56. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's hard to read that. MS. SCAVONE: Next exhibit is case law opinion of the Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, the second to last page. And just basically, again, it is explaining her opinion of serving the property owner notice on parks such as this. Do you want me to read it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just read No. 11. I can -- MS. SCAVONE: Thus, it would appear that local code provisions defining a violator to include the owner of the property owner which code violations exist would not be preempted or conflict with the terms of Part 1, Chapter 162, Florida Statute. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SCAVONE: Case evidence, Land Development Code, Chapter 9, just explaining, basically, how to get permits on nonconforming properties and that they are required. And lastly is our code violation determination from our building official and chief structural inspector, and this is basically just being used as collateral evidence of our opinion that there is a violation that exists on the property. If-- and also that if the owner wants to keep structures in place, all necessary permits shall be applied for from the Department of Health and the building department, or the applicant wants to remove any work which was done without a permit, a demolition would be required. Page 36 July 26, 2012 MR. BOATMAN: May I ask a question, briefly, regarding that, before I make an objection? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. BOATMAN: Was there an inspection done by the gentleman that signed that paper of the subject property? MS. SCAVONE: They do their investigations. I don't know what they do on their end. This is our determination, which I would assume that he's done his due diligence. MR. BOATMAN: Okay. I would object to that opinion being brought in without my opportunity to cross-examine the person regarding their opinion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SNOW: If I may. This is just corroborating our opinion. This is not hearsay evidence. We're allowed to submit this. It's just corroborating what we have suggested, what we presented. It's not hearsay. Other testimony probably is not needed in this venue because it's just corroborating. We can submit that. That's all this is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOATMAN: I stand by my objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. And I'd just like to ask the property owner some questions, Mr. Sanders. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. SCAVONE: Mr. Sanders, you are the property owner? MR. SANDERS: Yes, I am. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. MR. BOATMAN: I object. What property are you asking about? MS. SCAVONE: You are the property owner of Folio No. 5615020005 and 56150520002; location: 2280 Pineland Ave., Naples, Florida? Page 37 July 26, 2012 MR. BOATMAN: Just the real property, not the personal property? MS. SCAVONE: That -- as the property owner of those folio numbers. MR. SANDERS: Yes, I am. MS. SCAVONE: Do you receive income from any of the tenants to that property? MR. SANDERS: Yes, I do. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. And do they pay on a weekly or monthly rent cycle? MR. BOATMAN: I would object to the relevance of this line of questioning. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. I'm just trying to determine that he has control over the property and what he subjects to what's going on, on the property. Do they have your permission to be at the property, the renters in the trailers? MR. BOATMAN: I would object, but you can go ahead and answer. MR. SANDERS: If we object, we object. MS. SCAVONE: Do the tenants that are on -- that are living in the mobile homes on the property, do they have your permission to be on that property? MR. SANDERS: Yes, yes. MS. SCAVONE: Yes. Okay. So you -- if there were any benefits -- you would be able to control what's going on in that property as the property owner, correct? MR. BOATMAN: I would object. That calls for a legal conclusion. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. Again, I'm just trying to determine that he does have control over what's going on, on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any other questions? Page 38 July 26, 2012 MS. SCAVONE: I don't have any questions at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a question? MR. MARINO: Do these people have leases with you? MR. SANDERS: Yes. MR. MARINO: Monthly, PLE? MR. SANDERS: I think we just objected to that. They're actually annual leases. MS. SCAVONE: So. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: County's -- MS. SCAVONE: At this time the violation does remain. Did you want to hear the recommendation? No, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Try to keep this as simple as possible. MR. BOATMAN: Trust me, you don't know how much time I've spent trying to keep it simple. But, really, from a real property and from a governance standpoint, it's really an interesting and fascinating issue. And whenever you hear an attorney say that, it's bad news for whosever got to listen or who's got to pay, for that matter. But in the simplest terms, here's what we're dealing with. Mr. Sanders has been brought before this board as an owner of a piece of real property that's permitted through the state. There are things that are situated on the property. It's the things that are situated on the property that the county is unhappy about. And there's a disconnect between the ownership and regulation of this versus this. In a nutshell, that's the issue. So even if Mr. Marino or somebody else -- really, they've looked at the pictures, they kind of-- they've just got a feel in their bones that there's something wrong here; even if this is the right thing to do, it's not being done right. That's kind of the gist of where I am. So before I can even get to the stage of peeling the layers of the onion on the relative codes and whether this is an RV, they're just Page 39 July 26, 2012 calling it a mobile home. They're RVs. If you look at the state permit, it's all permitted RVs. The state looked at it six months ago, and they're all RVs. Case law suggested if you take an RV and you start attaching stuff to it, I don't care if it sits there for eight years and sinks like this into the ground, you don't change it into a mobile home. You'll see that case in our materials, and it's Sunshine Key Association versus Monroe, and I think it's an important place to start. In that case, which is a Third DCA case, the Court is reasoning. And it says the following thing: As conceded by the park, some owners had affixed sheds, porches, and other attachments to their vehicles inhibiting their road-ready capabilities. I think we've seen that that's occurred at the park. This explains why at on-site inspection the trial judge observed vehicles which she concluded were not readily movable. However, as the park points out, if classified as RVs, these additions would be code violation by the individual owners and, thus, should not be determinative of the classification of these vehicles when not so encumbered. So it goes back to let's get the right party before this board; that way we don't have to go through an appeal and all the other stuff. Let's just back off, figure out who the unit owners are, and then it also improves the process, because there are several of these situated. One of them might have a relatively modest bit of renovation or modification to be done for it to be compliant. Another may have to just go altogether. But it does no good to paint with these broad brush strokes, as has been done over here. And I understand. They -- they're dealing with this big onion, as I am, and they're doing the best they can, and they've been very professional in the undertaking in terms of my interaction with them. But I think we need to step back and do it the right way so that Page 40 July 26, 2012 we don't get into a situation where you're trying to correct things, but we've started out on such a wrong foot that, from a legal standpoint, it's not enforceable. That doesn't do anybody any good. The state already kind of saw this coming, because where all this drives from is a public policy. Public policy was that we want people with RVs to come into the state and be able to drive from county to county and not have to deal with this localized sort of, well, that's not how we do it in Lee County. You can't do that. So once you have your permit with the state and your pad and your -- these guys are inspected every six months. I mean, I don't know many businesses -- well, there's several businesses that are inspected -- but property owners are inspected every six months. As part of your package, you will see -- the package that I've given you -- MS. BAKER: Mr. Boatman, we have to admit that into evidence. It hasn't been given to the board. MR. BOATMAN: Oh. It's been distributed, but not -- oh, okay. MS. BAKER: It hasn't been distributed to them. MR. BOATMAN: My bad. So let me lead you through some of that so you can see that there's a state observer in this situation, and they are vested by the legislature with the responsibility of making sure his pads and his part of the fee simple is compliant, okay. On top of that, they have specific preemption language in Chapter 513 that says, if there's any issues vis-a-vis the landlord and the tenant in a RV or mobile home situation, counties, you can't get involved at all. State preempts that. That gets into the very issue where she was inquiring, couldn't you hold these people enforceable -- accountable? It's not for him to do that, and the state has made a specific regime for that not to occur, because if that occurs, all of a sudden -- the county violates him, and now he's got to be the county code enforcement person in kicking the people out. That's not how it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be the Department of Health, through Page 41 July 26, 2012 assistance with code, if code is relative, and they're supposed to violate the specific -- either it's -- most of these are motor vehicles. They have DMV tags on them. They're not real property. And you can't change them into being real property just by adding stuff onto them. That's what the case law says. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you saying that these vehicles are registered? MR. BOATMAN: I'm saying the county has not put on any evidence to suggest they are or they aren't. It is my understanding that -- we can testify that at least certain of them are registered. Is that accurate? MR. SANDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what I hear you saying is that the owner of the park is responsible for the slab, but what -- but not what's on it. MR. BOATMAN: Right. The person drives up, and they plug into electricity. They have a plug that they plug in; they plug into sewage. It's just like a campground. That's all -- this is -- these are just glorified campers that have been sitting there so long that they've sort of molded into their environment, but that was -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When was the last time one of them was moved out of the park? MR. SANDERS: 2010. MR. BOATMAN: 2010. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So they've been there since that time? I have a question regarding taxes on this. Obviously, square footage has been added to these units. I'm not getting into who's responsible for it, but I'm assuming that if square footage has been added, there should be a taxable amount that comes with that. Jean, would you say that the county looks at that, they don't look at that? MS. RAWSON: I don't know whether the county looks at it or Page 42 July 26, 2012 not but, you know, you can ask the respondent about the taxes on the property. MR. BOATMAN: Mr. Kaufman, if I may -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. BOATMAN: -- assist your analysis. Okay. I would like to go ahead and submit my first exhibit, which is the top page in the materials you've been provided. MS. BAKER: They haven't been provided yet. MR. BOATMAN: That they haven't seen yet. I apologize. I'm slow. MS. BAKER: But they've got to -- do you want to submit the whole packet as a whole? They can accept the whole packet as evidence. MR. BOATMAN: That would be good, unless these guys are going to give me a hard time like I gave them. MS. BAKER: The county's already seen it, and they have no objection. MR. BOATMAN: Oh. MS. SCAVONE: No objection. MR. BOATMAN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I'll make a motion to accept the packet. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the packet. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 43 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: Would you like me just to put them up on the screen? MR. BOATMAN: That would be very helpful, Jen. I appreciate it. MS. BAKER: Which -- the first page. MR. BOATMAN: Yes, ma'am. MS. BAKER: The property appraiser? MR. BOATMAN: Yes. Okay. This document is, obviously, a public record. Everybody probably recognizes what that is. It defines the tax situation, the property-tax situation on the lot. And as you will see, there's a land value of forty-nine, five. The improved value is zero. There's no improvements on this land. It's the same with the other folio. We thought we had both folios. But it's a matter of public record. There is zero improvements. To further support that position, if you will go to the email from Ernie Kerskie, which is just a couple pages away, which I would like to submit as my second. Relatively early on in this undertaking when my client was really trying to figure out why have I been -- why has this park been here since '56 and all of a sudden -- he was trying to orient himself to the viability of the code enforcement action, and he was looking for assistance by Ernie Kerskie. The property appraiser response, after listing the folio numbers -- and this is in the third full paragraph -- the properties are both assessed as vacant and the improvements, parenthetical, mobile homes, are considered motor vehicle. So this gets back to this. We're here really talking about this. As soon as we start talking about this, we need to talk to somebody else. These -- his property is vacant land as far as the county's concerned, and they know what's there, as far as the taxing authority's concerned. And I just wanted to address that, because I thought that was what you were asking about. Page 44 July 26, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Does your client only own one of the units? MR. BOATMAN: To my knowledge. MR. SANDERS: Yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You do not own any of the other units? MR. SANDERS: No. MR. L'ESPERANCE: They're all individually owned by different people? MR. SANDERS: They're all individually owned, yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you have common restrooms or laundry facilities, a permanent fracture? MR. SANDERS: No, sir, because it's under the 25 units; it's not required. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there any children living there in the park? MR. SANDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do they attend school? MR. SANDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do they pay school taxes? MR. SANDERS: I don't know what they pay, other than under property taxes. I just pay the real property taxes. I'm responsible for the real property from what I understand, and each individual property owner is individually assessed their own taxes on their license plate or the decal sticker. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there's a community there that has men, women, and children living there that pay no taxes; no school taxes, no real estate taxes, but they are provided all the services that Collier County offers; am I correct in that? MR. BOATMAN: I would suggest not, sir. The State of Florida recovers taxes on these RV parks. And it's my understanding that the county does receive funding from the State of Florida. And in this -- Page 45 July 26, 2012 the trajectory of this analysis is a public policy analysis and if-- that's not one that's going to yield a good outcome, I would suggest. Because if that were the case, you would have local governments squeezing out the mobile home units in parks, and that gets into a real difficult situation with regard to Chapter 513 and Chapter 723. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I'm not trying to do any analysis. I'm just asking questions. MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Question. MR. MARINO: The people that are living in those particular units, do they own those units or they lease them from somebody else? MR. SANDERS: That I'm really not positive of. MR. MARINO: Well, I think he should know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What are the rules that govern -- MR. SNOW: Gentlemen, let's focus on the issue at hand, okay. We have a property. Any property, whether it's multiple units or single units -- and let me make a clarification here where counsel's trying to lead you. All the state does is regulate operations of that park. That has to do with electric, that has to do with -- make sure the trash is picked up, that has to make sure -- that's making sure that the electric is the way it should be. They have nothing to do with our local codes. If it was a singular property or there's one or two units on a property or it's multifamily, it still requires building permits. That's the issue. It doesn't matter who owns it. He owns the property where those mobile homes sit. That's the issue. We don't know who's in those mobile homes. We don't know if the owners of those mobile homes rent them to somebody else. They're on his property. State statutes dictate he's responsible. Pam Bondi, who's the attorney general for the State of Florida, says that we can serve him. These folios are owned by him. I don't understand what the contention is. Page 46 July 26, 2012 Every -- even if you rent a home, you rent a home to somebody, you have a tenant there, you're still responsible. The only person that can pull a permit for a property is with the authorization of that property owner or a contractor that's been authorized by that. That's it. That's it. He's on the rolls of the tax -- from the tax collector as the responsible party for paying taxes. Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Sanders, your leases that you have for these individual units, are they with the individuals, the tenants living in the units or the owners of the RVs? MR. SANDERS: It would be the individual tenants. MR. MARINO: Who's the tenant? What's the definition of a tenant? Is it the person -- the tenant that owns -- the person that owns the -- I need this for my own clarification. The person that owns that mobile unit, is he the tenant, or is the person living in the unit the tenant? MR. SANDERS: I would believe the person living in the unit would be the tenant. MR. BOATMAN: So just to understand, is your tenant the owner of the thing that's -- is the owner of this your -- the person you do business with? MR. SANDERS: You know, I believe it could be, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is, because if you borrowed a vehicle and moved it in, that -- and I rented you a space -- MR. BOATMAN: So you're just -- MR. SANDERS: -- I don't really know who owns the unit. MR. BOATMAN: Okay. So he's just renting out the pad, and so he doesn't necessarily know who owns the motor vehicle sitting on the pad. MR. MARINO: Don't you think that he should know? MR. BOATMAN: Well, there's no -- MR. MARINO: The violations and everything else, don't you Page 47 July 26, 2012 think he should know? MS. SCAVONE: According to the state statutes, the rolls, that he's supposed to know who's registered in that park. MR. BOATMAN: Well, he knows who's registered in the park. It's the person who's renting the unit from him. MS. SCAVONE: Again, I'd just like to bring back the attention that we're talking about additions and alterations; not that specific mobile home, but the additions and alterations that were attached to those mobile homes that are on the ground; where, as I stated before in 15C-2.0081, that, you know, any additions and alterations, they have to be freestanding, and they are locally -- have to be in compliance with state and local codes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just -- this is not the first mobile park that we've heard. As a matter of fact, one -- I remember a case that's no more than a mile away from here. And our major concern with that was electrical. If a violation, a safety hazard exists, you're saying that he has no responsibility for it? MR. BOATMAN: He may. If the -- for instance, if in one of his pedestals where there's a plug-in that's state defined in terms of how this pedestal's presented, if he -- if the state walks through there the next time, which will probably be in two months, and they don't like the way the pedestal's configured or there's an issue, they tell him to clean it up. One thing that I would like to add at this juncture to my evidence is -- the top of it says the State of Florida Department of Health, county health department, and it's a stapled number of pages together. We just picked some random samples of some Department of Health inspections of the property. See, there is somebody -- one of the things that it would appear that you're concerned with is this notion that if we don't do something and something terrible happens, it's going to be back on our plate. The something terrible happens vis-a-vis this gentleman is the Page 48 July 26, 2012 pads and the pedestals. And the state -- the Department of Health even looks at issues beyond that. If you look at the front page of it, for instance, comments and instruction: Remove sink and refrigerator from carport, remove plywood and propane tanks. And they go through and they do a physical inspection. And it also includes a review of the electrical components of the pedestal. Now, if the people that drive up there and plug something in and do something with their unit that's not lawful, pursuant to Florida Statute 723.023, which is entitled "mobile home owner's general obligations" -- we're not conceding that these are even mobile homes, but if they are, then let's look at that statute. That statute specifically says that mobile homeowners shall comply with all obligations imposed on mobile home owners by applicable provisions of building, housing, and health codes. The buck is supposed to stop with the people that own it. He is not -- it's not supposed to become a mini fiefdom. You can imagine why that is the case, because you could have a heavy handed -- see, we're kind of looking -- these policy decisions are made from these global perspectives, and you have all of these interests coming in, and you find this balance. If it was, in fact, his obligation to take the baton from you and beat these people into submission, you can see how that could be abused. You would be empowering him, in fact, to suggest to people you have to do X, Y, and Z. You have to pay me, you have to do -- that's what they didn't want to have happen. And so they gave the obligation directly to the owner to take responsibility for that vehicle, and if they don't, guess what, the state comes and tows it out of there or they lose their right to have it. And so 723.024 goes on to suggest that if a unit of local government finds that a violation of local code or ordinance has occurred, the unit of local government shall cite the responsible party for the violation. A lien, penalty, fine, or administrative or civil Page 49 July 26, 2012 proceeding may not be brought against a mobile park owner for violations by the -- of the duties of the mobile home owner. I mean, that's Chapter 723.024. They've already thought about this very conundrum that we're facing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I pause you there for a moment? MR. BOATMAN: Yes, sir. MR. SNOW: Gentlemen, hold on -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: At the bottom of this page, it says "mail to owner." Who is the owner? MR. BOATMAN: Of what page? MR. L'ESPERANCE: The page that's on the screen. Who's the owner that they mailed that to? MR. SANDERS: That would be me. MR. L'ESPERANCE: They mailed these findings to you? MR. BOATMAN: That's right. MR. L'ESPERANCE: For an individual unit? MR. SANDERS: This was for the trailer park, East Naples Trailer Park. It's a health inspection, and on the -- MR. SNOW: Gentlemen, all that is, is an operational inspection. It has nothing to do with any health and safety issues that are prevalent with unpermitted additions. Any rental property in unincorporated Collier County, the property owner is responsible, but this is no different. This is no different than any other mobile home park we've been through. The property owner is responsible. He's on the tax rolls as paying the taxes for this property. Whatever happens on that property, he's responsible for. The statute dictates that. Statutes -- there's precedence all over that said that the property owner's responsible, and that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about illegal additions, period. MR. L'ESPERANCE: My next question is for Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. Page 50 July 26, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think you want to perhaps -- you look like you've got some recommendations that you might want to give us. MS. RAWSON: Well, this is a very interesting case, and -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. MS. RAWSON: -- I can't tell you guys how to rule. MR. L'ESPERANCE: True. MS. RAWSON: You're going to have to decide whether he, as the owner of the -- as Mr. Boatman called it -- the dirt is responsible for the persons who own -- which is probably personal property, because they're RVs -- if he's responsible for their violations as the owner of the dirt. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. The county is telling you, yes, he is. This is no different from any of the other mobile home cases that you've heard. So you can wrestle with that decision. There are good arguments on both sides, but I can't tell you how to rule. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Understand. Is this the correct venue for that consideration? MS. RAWSON: You have to decide -- your duty as Code Enforcement Board is to decide whether or not there has been a violation of this ordinance as cited and -- it's more than one. The -- he's being charged with having approximately 12 mobile homes installed with several additions added to the mobile homes consisting of carports, screen porches, roofs-over, and living space below flood level with electrical and plumbing without first obtaining all required building permits. That's the Statement of Violation. So you have to determine whether or not Mr. Sanders, as the owner of these -- this property that's in these two folios, is the violator. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MS. SCAVONE: May I ask a question? I just wanted -- the evidence as presented up at the board right now, that you are inferring that, Mr. Sanders, you were the property owner that received this Page 51 July 26, 2012 report from the health department? MR. SANDERS: Yes. I'm regulated under the department of health. MS. SCAVONE: And you would regulate the item numbers at the bottom for each individual unit, that they would come into compliance with the state? MR. BOATMAN: I would object to the question, because the question presumes that these are associated with individual unit items. I object to the premise. MS. SCAVONE: I'm trying to determine who the -- it says mailed to the owner, and at top it says owner, Kirk Sanders. Is that inferring -- MR. MARINO: Well, I have a question on that, but to the bottom of the page. We've got violations here with things being built and everything else. You've got Item 20, replace missing skirting on -- I guess that's Unit 9, 13 and 7. If you replace the floorboard or a piece of wood, you need a permit for that. Who is responsible for replacing that missing skirting on those mobile units, and who does it? MR. SNOW: It wouldn't require a permit. MS. SCAVONE: The mobile units are per HUD standards built, and we don't regulate what's going on. We're talking about what's on the real property is what -- the things that -- needing permits, and additions. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Keep on going. I see where you're going. MR. MARINO: You know where I'm going? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, make a motion. MR. MARINO: Who takes care of all these -- who takes care of all these violations that you've got, the -- you as the owner of the property or the person that is renting that pad or leasing that pad? You've got "remove sink and refrigerator from carport." That's just a removal. You can remove plywood, but you've got things here that need to be replaced, which needs a permit to do that. If you're Page 52 July 26, 2012 replacing a poster on a banister or a railing, you need a permit. MR. SNOW: No, it's below a certain amount of money, Mr. Marino. No, you wouldn't have to do that. What we're trying to do is -- is from this report -- this report suggests that there's individual properties that have been -- that he's been cited for. We're trying to suggest that he is responsible for correcting those violations which -- from the state. The state doesn't regulate anything but operations. Again, this is a rental property. It doesn't matter how many units are on it. It's a rental property. The property owner's responsible. Now, there's a contention by council that these are all recreational vehicles. I would suggest they're not all recreational vehicles. I think there's some, but there's mobile homes on there, and there's manufactured homes on there. So I think that contention is not fully accurate either. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we close the public hearing on this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. I think we've talked this to death right now, and -- MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion, based on all the facts that I've seen and the statutes, that there is, in Page 53 July 26, 2012 fact, a violation on this property as stated. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. You know you're -- we find you in violation, and you know what the next steps are better than we do. MR. BOATMAN: Thank you, sir. May I ask at this juncture to just proffer my last pieces of evidence into the file? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. SCAVONE: May the county make a recommendation? MS. BAKER: Hold on. Jean, can he enter evidence after the public hearing is closed? MS. RAWSON: They'd have to re-open the public hearing in order for him to do that. He wants to make a proffer, but you have to re-open the public hearing because you've closed it and you already made the -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this a verbal proffer or a simple documentation offering? MR. BOATMAN: I was just going to submit the documents that I had. And I didn't know we were wrapping up, so -- just -- I felt like the door just shut, and I want to make sure I slip in -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: So there'll be no argument with the proffer of the documents? MS. RAWSON: Well, I could be mistaken. The court reporter Page 54 July 26, 2012 will tell me if I am. But I believe he introduced the whole packet and you accepted it, so it's all -- MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. BOATMAN: Thank you, Jean, for that clarification. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. MR. BOATMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: Would you like the recommendation, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, we would. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. The Code Enforcement Board orders that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of$81 .43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining any and all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X amount a 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 want to -- the costs are 41 -- 81.43? MS. BAKER: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we're looking for a time and fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that the administrative costs of 81.43 be paid within 30 days, that the compliance occur within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 a day be imposed for the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we Page 55 July 26, 2012 have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MR. BOATMAN: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Short break, sir? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. We're going to take a 10-minute break. Be back at 45. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Code enforcement is back in session. MS. BAKER: Okay. Mr. Chairman, we have -- the next cases are No. 2 and No. 3 on the agenda, and the cases go hand in hand, and we had thought that we'd present these cases together; however, we have one respondent from one case and no respondent for the other case. So it's the same testimony for both cases. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: He just will be speaking on one of the property owner's behalf. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And then we'll vote separately on the individual cases. MS. BAKER: Yes. Okay. So I'll call the cases. The first is No. 2, Case CESD20120000114, Olympia Park RTL Building Page 56 July 26, 2012 Development, LLC, and No. 3, Case CESD20120000116, VP Office Holdings, LLC. And we will read each Statement of Violation as well for both cases. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 6.06.03(A). Description of violation: Failure to install streetlight at north entry/exit at Vanderbilt Beach Road. Location/address where violation exists: 2400 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, Florida, 34109; Folio No. 64630000021. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Olympia Park RTL Building Development, LLC, P.O. Box 25965, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, 66225, care of registered agent, R&P Property Management, 265 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: January 4, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 19, 2012. Date on by/which violation to be corrected: February 13, 2012. Date of reinspection: May 24, 2012. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you give me the last three digits case number on the first one. MR. MARINO: 114. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 114? MR. MARINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did I hear you say 21, or I'm listening to a different number? MS. BAKER: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the other 116. MS. CRAWLEY: VP Office Holdings, LLC, CESD20120000116. Page 57 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Got it, okay. MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 6.06.03(A). Description of violation: Failure to install streetlight at north entry/exit at Vanderbilt Beach Road. Location/address where violation exists: 2244 Venetian Court, Naples, Florida, 34109; Folio No. 237600008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: VP Office Holdings LLC, 4600 Enterprise Avenue, Suite A, Naples, Florida, 34104. Care of registered agent: Richard L. Armalavage, 2240 Venetian Court, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: January 4, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 17, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 13, 2012. Date of reinspection: May 24, 2012. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: David? MR. JONES: Good afternoon. MS. BAKER: Good morning. MR. JONES: As I explained -- good -- thank you. As I explain further, you'll see how these two cases coincide. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's two separate lights, by the way? MR. JONES: No. It's just one light. So at the southwest corner of Airport Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road there's a PUD known as Olympia Park PUD, Walgreens PUD, and there was another one. Anyway, there's an entrance/exit at this PUD, and the entrance/exit butts up to Vanderbilt Beach Road. And according to the Collier County LDC, a streetlight needs to be installed at all street entrance intersects. Page 58 July 26, 2012 This Olympia Park Boulevard happens to be a shared access agreement between Olympia Park, which the gentleman here is representing, and Venetia PUD. So that's why they're together. If one doesn't do it, they're both at fault for not having the streetlight there because it's a shared access agreement between the two of them, and that's the gist of the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's like a marriage. MR. JONES: Yes, yes, very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll try the husband first, and then we'll go to the wife. MR. CARROLL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. CARROLL: On behalf of Olympia Park, we want to thank you and let you know that the board -- the board was put into place in the spring of this year. As such, they were handed two lawsuits internally at the same time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you for one second. Could you just give your name for the record. MR. CARROLL: Oh, sorry. Glenn Carroll, R&P Property Management, property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Great, thank you. MR. CARROLL: What the board is requesting is some time. We have been working with David trying to contact the other party. Our revenue was cut in half due to one of the lawsuits for the distribution of maintenance fees. In addition, we also had a delinquency and are now served with an additional lawsuit that we're defending. So, financially, we don't have the resources to put or even attempt to put a streetlight up, but what the board wants to do is to see if we can find the "wife" and work together to come together with some kind of financial means with which we can do this. We have tried on a number of occasions, even going to the Page 59 July 26, 2012 address, as you have just heard, to see if we could find somebody to at least deal with us face to face. We have been unsuccessful in that, as I believe the county has as well in getting a response. We're just asking for some time to get our finances in line and to get our lawsuit settled, and then we can go forward. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What is your estimate as to the cost of the installation of this light? MR. CARROLL: We had gotten three bids. The cheapest one we've gotten so far is $4,500. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. First we need to find if the respondent is in violation or not. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. A violation exists. Now, how much time do you think you'd need to -- MR. CARROLL: We were asking for six months because we think the lawsuit should be settled by then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is it a safety, David, item? MR. JONES: In my personal opinion, I would not consider it a viable safety issue at this point. It's -- you know, there hasn't been any incidents at this entry/exit point. There is a clear sight -- line of traffic right now, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you have any problem with six months? Page 60 July 26, 2012 MR. JONES: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm looking for a motion from the board. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion, six months, 180 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. BAKER: You need the fine amount. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, fine per day after that? MS. BAKER: Did we read the recommendation? Let's read the recommendation first. MR. JONES: I'll read the recommendation, then you fill in the blanks, and we'll just go from there. And I didn't state my name for the record either. David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll make you stay after. MR. JONES: Okay. The recommendations are as follows: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Install all required arterial lighting and obtain any necessary permits, inspections, and certificate of completion for the installation of arterial lighting within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated, and also 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, that 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. So if I understand your Page 61 July 26, 2012 suggestion -- MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion that he pays the amount of $80.86 within 30 days, extension of 180 days or a fine of$100 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It carries 3-1. MS. BAKER: Okay. So -- MR. LAVINSKI: I voted no. I think the time is too long, but the amount of money is not that great, and those operations for PUDs certainly have special assessment powers, and I think it could be done a lot quicker than six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: Okay. So that was for the first case, for CESD20120000114, Olympia Park. So now we need to do Case CESD20120000116, VP Office Holdings, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. JONES: And the case is -- mirrors, you know, what we just discussed. So if you'd like, I could just read the recommendations as well. There's a difference in cost in the operational costs for this other entity, so I'll just read this again and then you can provide the -- MS. BAKER: Don't read it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, that would be proper to proceed in Page 62 July 26, 2012 that fashion? MS. RAWSON: Yes, because you have to have two different orders. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. JONES: Are you ready? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. JONES: And this is in regards to owner, which is VP Office Holdings, LLC, that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Install all required arterial lighting and obtain any necessary permits, inspections, and certificate of completion for the installation of arterial lighting within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated. Also, 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. So you just want to do the same -- okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Motion from the board? MR. MARINO: I'm not taking it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'll take it. The fine is $80? MR. JONES: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Within 30 days, the days are 180, and the fine is $100 a day. I have a comment to make. In cases like this where -- for whatever reason the respondent, in this case, this particular respondent, has been unavailable. You've been unable to reach him? MR. JONES: I have. I've tried numerous attempts, and I've not Page 63 July 26, 2012 been able to reach (sic) contact with him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because I'm certainly of the mindset to make them an offer where it probably will -- if this case comes back in six months and they're still unavailable, I think we can probably adjust the penalty accordingly. MR. JONES: I agree, at that time, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second your motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on a second. You have a question? MR. MARINO: Could there have been two different penalties and two different times? MS. BAKER: Well, they're cases that go hand in hand. They have to work together to install the streetlight. So the time frame should be the same as you did for the other case. If you want to put a different fine amount, that's up to you, but to be consistent -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I suggest that we mirror them. MR. MARINO: Well, the only reason I'm saying that is that you're having trouble reaching the second party, but the first party you haven't had any trouble reaching or communicating with them? MR. JONES: No, I haven't. And, hopefully, they'll be the ones that install the streetlight and we can just get this -- MR. MARINO: I'm saying maybe if you do it the other way with the other people, we could push them into -- that's just a suggestion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second your motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 64 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Opposed? No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One opposed. MR. LAVINSKI: Based on the time allocation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You may -- you have been unable to reach these folks -- let them know of our displeasure with them not working together with the other organization. MR. JONES: Okay, I will. Thanks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Okay. Next case we move to old business, No. 5, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number 1, Case CES20110006426, Carlisle Wilson Plaza, LLC. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. LETOURNEAU: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The original violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 5.06.11(A)(1) and 5.06.07(A). Violation location is 50 Wilson Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37221120305. Violation description: Pole sign, Wilson Plaza altered without required permit. Wall sign, The Farmer Jack Supermarket altered without required permit. Past order: On January 19, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4760, Page 546, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of July 26, 2012. The fines and costs are -- to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period Page 65 July 26, 2012 between February 19, 2012, and July 26, 2012, totaling 159 days, for a total amount of$15,900. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $15,980.57. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with them at all? MR. LETOURNEAU: I have been in contact, actually. I talked to the -- I believe the property manager last month and told him that they need to come -- you know, do -- at least get a demo permit or get the -- whatever the sign is up there at this time to be permitted, and they haven't made a move since then. So I don't really know what their issue is at this point. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case is No. 3, Case CESD20100021657, Fifth Third Mortgage Company. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow. This concerns CEB Case No. CESD20100021657, Board of Collier Commission (sic), Page 66 July 26, 2012 County Commissioners versus Fifth Third Mortgage Company. The violation is Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article II of the Florida Building Code, adoption (sic) and amended of the Florida Building Code, Sections 22-26(b)(104.5.1.4.4) Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1, and Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). The location is 3420 Caloosa Street, Naples, Florida, 34112; folio number is 74412600008. And the description is Permit 2009100320, expired and has been canceled, leaving additions, alterations on residence unpermitted and incomplete. Past orders: On May 26, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, a conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4690, Page 258, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of June 22, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate -- at the rate of$200 per day for a period between September 24, 2011, and June 22, 2012, 273 days, for a total of$54,600. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of 84.01 have been paid. Total fine amount to date is $54,600. The county recommends abatement of the fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 67 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was worth the wait. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 4, Case CESD20110009946, Carlos Rego Rivers. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I was actually going to let Mr. Rivers go first because I think he has a request that he wants to ask of you guys. MR. RIVERS: Okay. My name is Carlos Rivers. I have to legalize the lanai. And the only reason I'm denied -- I'm 95 percent done. I have the picture right here -- it's a budget problem. My hand get hurt last week, and no can finish at this time. So I ask, you know, like 45 days to -- get complete. I already have here inspection for footing final. The footing already has a letter from my engineer; I already have here. I finish some part of the job. It's a letter for the engineer. Now I have to go for the final inspection for, you know, the okay. That's all. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You're requesting 45 days extension, sir? MR. RIVERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Give us a shout. MR. MUCHA: I was going to say, I think, you know, what he was trying to get at, he's real close to coming into compliance, so he was just wanting some additional time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Since this is an imposition of fines, what's the best way to accomplish granting some additional time? Page 68 July 26, 2012 MS. BAKER: You can go ahead and grant them the extension of time. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant this individual 90 days extension of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have 90 days. I hope your hand is better by then and you can finish it all up by then. MR. RIVERS: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you for your patience today. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 5, CEAU20 1 1 0000498, Matthew Arsenault and Christina Arsenault. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The original violation is of the Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, permits, Section 105.1 . Violation location is 105 6th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37226440006. Violation description was a white fence surrounding the property and a brown wooden fence next to the principal structure. Past orders: On January 19, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent Page 69 July 26, 2012 was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4760, Page 660, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 28, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between March 21, 2012, to March 28, 2012, 8 days, for the total amount of$800. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.29 have been paid. Total amount to date, $800. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Jeff. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 6, Case CESD20110003169, Kimberly M. Fry. And on this case you also have received a letter from Ms. Fry, so if you need a chance to review that. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. McGONAGLE: Ready? Page 70 July 26, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yep, shoot. MS. McGONAGLE: For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.0206(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location: 6025 English Oaks Lane, Naples, Florida, 34119; Folio No. 41883680004. Description: Converted the downstairs utility room into living space and added a room on the upstairs deck, both without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Past orders: On June 23, 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, OR4698, Page 1356, for more information. An extension of time was granted on February 23, 2012. See the attached order of the board, OR4772, Page 1293, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of July 26, 2012. Fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$200 per day for the period between June 23, 2012, July 26, 2012, 34 days, for the total of$6,800. Fines continue to accrue. Order No. 5, operation costs of$80.57 have been paid. Total amount to date: $6,800. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent? MS. McGONAGLE: I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there any reason why the respondent is not here today? Page 71 July 26, 2012 MS. McGONAGLE: That I'm not sure. I had talked to her roommate, and he wasn't sure if she was going to be able to make it. I know she does have some health challenges. She had sent the letter but, there again, she didn't ask for another extension or anything. The last I spoke to her, she basically just is throwing her hands up and doesn't have the money to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I see that 120 days was granted in February. And according to this, the -- I guess the bank is -- looks like the bank is going after her as well. I don't know if granting any -- anything other than imposing the fine would help. MR. LAVINSKI: It doesn't appear there's -- in my reading the letter or anything else, that there's any hope that this is going to be corrected. So as of today the violation sits there and exists. I make a motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: Next case is Case No. 7, Case CESD20100008561, Jose L. Perez and Isabel Perez. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The original violation is of the Collier County Land Page 72 July 26, 2012 Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location of violation: 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37221090008. Violation description: No Collier County permits obtained or inspections and certificate of completion for the pool and pool screen enclosure. Past order: On February 23, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4772, Page 1289, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of July 26, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between June 23, 2012, and July 26, 2012, totaling 34 days for the total amount of$5,100. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $5,180.86. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 8, Case CESD20110010712, Page 73 July 26, 2012 Manuel Olvera. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. The original violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location is 1823 43rd Street Southwest, Naples, 34116; Folio No. is 35765240002. Violation description is a permit for reroof that was canceled without completing all inspections and a conversion of a garage to living space without permits. Past orders: On February 23, 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, OR4772, Page 1310, for more information. As of today, the property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of July 26, 2012. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the period between June 23, 2012, and July 26, 2012, 34 days, for a total of$8,500. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.29 have not been paid. Total amount to date is 8,580.29. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 74 July 26, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Let's go. MS. BAKER: And the last case is No. 10, Case CEPM20110003139, CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The original violation is of the Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 4, Section 424.2.17. Violation location: 561 2nd Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 37281720004. The violation description: No protective barrier surrounding the swimming pool. Past order: On October 27, 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, OR4734, Page 2797, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 8, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between November 27, 2011, and March 8, 2012, 103 days, for a total amount of$20,600. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have been paid. Total amount to the date: $20,680.86. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated, and operational costs are paid. Page 75 July 26, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Jeff. Which now brings us to reports. Do we have any reports today? MS. BAKER: Not today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have no reports today. Not many people to hear the reports that we don't have, so it's okay. Next meeting is August 23, 2012. Anybody have anything else to discuss? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I will not be able to attend the August 23rd meeting, and no need to deliver the packet. MS. BAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a good idea. You're saving county money. Very nice. MS. RAWSON: I hope some of our other members will be able to attend in August. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They'll be here. We'll make them an offer they can't refuse. MR. MARINO: And I suggest that we use a timer from now on, on some of these things. Page 76 July 26, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll be the timer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The chairman is the timer. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Except not in August. MR. MARINO: You get an iPhone, you get your seconds. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Make a motion that we adjourn. MR. MARINO: Are you sure? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. If you want to vote against it, that's possible. MR. MARINO: I'll third it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :20 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 411. BERT 'AN, CHAIRMAN These mfinutes approved by the Board on 4 A s presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERM LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 77