CEB Minutes 08/23/2012 R August 23, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Naples, Florida
August 23, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Co
Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, ha
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 n REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government • 1 x, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members pr
ift,N'
Nit
1hT,
CHAI '4 : Robert Kaufman
,,S Larry Mieszcak
Kenneth Kelly (Absent)
James Lavinski
Gerald Lefebvre
/".:(4S, Lionel L'Esperance (Excused)
Tony Marino
x Ron Doino (Alternate)
v Chris Hudson (Alternate-late)
Ai '- SENT:
an Rawson, Attorney for the Board.
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
Colleen Crawley, Code Enforcement Associate
Page 1
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
AGENDA
Date: August 23,2012
Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL 34104
NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (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 (5)MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS
ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS
RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD
ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER
COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING
THIS RECORD.
1. ROLL CALL
Robert Kaufman, Chair Lionel L' Esperance
Gerald Lefebvre,Vice Chair Tony Marino
Kenneth Kelly Ronald Doino Jr.,Alternate
James Lavinski Chris Hudson,Alternate
Larry Mieszcak
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—
A. July 26,2012
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS
A. MOTIONS
Motion for Re-Hearing
1. Robert E. &Colleen Rossomando CEOCC20120002338
Motion for Continuance
Motion for Extension of Time
B. STIPULATIONS
C. HEARINGS
1. CASE NO: CESD20120004317
OWNER: PACIFICA LAUREL RIDGE LLC.% PACIFICA COMPANIES LLC.
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)A/C HANDLER INSTALLED WITHOUT VALID COLLIER COUNTY
PERMITS
FOLIO NO: 3618008008
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 5543 LAUREL RIDGE LANE UNIT 107 NAPLES,FL 34116
2. CASE NO: CESD20120001351
OWNER: STEVE&ALICE POSELEY
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, BUILDING AND LAND
ALTERATION PERMITS,(PERMITS, INSPECTIONS,CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
REQUIRED)COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41,AS AMENDED,
SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND(e)DEMO WORK BEING DONE-NO PERMIT OBTAINED
FOLIO NO: 24537040001
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 706 W. VALLEY DR. BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34134
3. CASE NO: CESD20110016681
OWNER: KRG 951 &41 LLC.
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.13(F)FAILURE TO SUBMIT ANNUAL PUD MONITORING REPORT
FOLIO NO: 726240005
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS
4. CASE NO: CELU20120007339
OWNER: TIMOTHY TODD LAINHART,LORI RENEE LAINHART,ANTHONY IRA
LAINHART AND DEANA RENEE LAINHART
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
1.04.01(A),2.02.03 AND I0.02.06(B)(1 Xa)A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
WITH UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS AND WITH NO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
ON THE SAME PARCEL
FOLIO NO: 37692280007
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS
5. CASE NO: CESD20110016035
OWNER: IRIS LABRIE
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER I,SECTION 110.1
EXPIRED PERMIT#2001041543 AND NO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OBTAINED
FOR PERMIT
FOLIO NO: 55901120005
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 266 6TH STREET W. BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34134
6. CASE NO: CESD20110012040
OWNER: WESTBURY QUAIL GARDENS LLC.
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.13(F)FAILURE TO SUBMIT PUD MONITORING REPORT
FOLIO NO: 64918000028
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS
7. CASE NO: CENA20120006825
OWNER: GWENDOLYN GREEN
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI,
SECTION 54-181 LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO; REFUSE,CLOTHES,
BOXES,ASSORTED METALS,PLASTICS AND WOOD TIRES,ETC.
FOLIO NO: 41044640003
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 3675 10TH AVE.SE.NAPLES, FL 34117
8. CASE NO: CESD20110005345
OWNER: GRAND CYPRESS COMMUNITIES,INC.
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(IXe)REMODEL INCLUDING THE
REMOVAL OF A FIRE WALL BETWEEN COMMERCIAL UNIT 604&605,PRIOR
TO ISSUANCE OF A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT
FOLIO NO: 76885100984
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 3887 MANNIX DR. UNIT 605 NAPLES,FL 34114
9. CASE NO: CESD20110015021
OWNER: KLUVER TR,DAWN COMMERCIAL TRUST REAL TRUST
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE GIANNONE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
I0.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WALLS,BEING BUILT WITHOUT PROPER COLLIER COUNTY
PERMIT
FOLIO NO: 61946000006
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 3666 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH NAPLES,FL 34104
10. CASE NO: CESD20120004188
OWNER: DOREEN BIGICA
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(IXe)NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOR
GARAGE DOOR CONVERTED TO DOUBLE GLASS DOORS
FOLIO NO: 45965880003
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 2391 19TH ST. SW.NAPLES,FL 34117
11. CASE NO: CESD20120006530
OWNER: DOREEN BIGICA
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.13(F)FAILURE TO SUBMIT ANNUAL PUD MONITORING REPORT
FOLIO NO: 36453120006
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 5100 27TH PLACE SW NAPLES,FL 34116
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens
1. CASE NO: 2007050898
OWNER: MR.99 CENTS,INC.
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS
10.02.06(B)(I)(a), 10.02.06(B)(I Xe)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i)A 50 FOOT BY 12 FOOT
ROOM ADDITION WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS
FOLIO NO: 00074560000
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 1813 LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD IMMOKALEE,FL 34142
2. CASE NO: CESD20110006971
OWNER: HENRY&JAN E.HOLZKAMPER
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELLE SCAVONE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)DRYWALL HAS BEEN REMOVED AND
REPLACED IN THE EAST BUILDING'S BOTTOM EAST UNIT(a)AND THE STAIRS ON
THE FRONT OF THE EAST BUILDING HAVE BEEN REPAIRED TO INCLUDE BUT NOT
LIMITED TO: HANDRAILS,STEPS AND SUPPORTS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL
REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS
FOLIO NO: 5260044005
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 3230 THOMASSON DR.NAPLES,FL 34112
3. CASE NO: CESD20110015948
OWNER: MICHAEL ZAGER&PAULA J.RHOADS
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)REMODELING/ALTERATIONS TO INSIDE AND
OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE PROPER COLLIER
COUNTY PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS
FOLIO NO: 65322840006
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 557 CYPRESS WAY EAST NAPLES, FL 34110
4. CASE NO: CESD20110000679
OWNER: MADERLINE& EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)CONCRETE SLAB WITH PVC PIPING,AN UNFURNISHED GAZEBO
TYPE STRUCTURE WITH ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND A MOBILE HOME HAVE ALL
BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL
REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS
FOLIO NO: 00420080008
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 6066 ADKINS AVE.NAPLES,FL 34112
5. CASE NO: CESD20110014953
OWNER: TOMMY PICKREN
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE GIANNONE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AN UNPERMITTED SHED WITH UTILITIES(PLUMBING)IN THE
REAR YARD
FOLIO NO: 63401440002
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 1072 N.ALHAMBRA CIRCLE NAPLES,FL 34103
6. CASE NO: CELU20110009421
OWNER: TERRY HERNANDEZ&BRIAN K.FULTS
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS
2.02.03 OBSERVED POOL BUILT ON THE PROPERTY WITH NO PRIMARY STRUCTURE
POOL WATER GREEN WITH ALGAE
FOLIO NO: 35988400001
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 2700 47TH TERRACE SW.NAPLES,FL 34116
7. CASE NO: CESD20110007803
OWNER: LARRY W.FOX
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)STORAGE SHED IN THE REAR YARD CONVERTED INTO A LIVING
SPACE WITH A SMALL KITCHEN AND BATH ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY
OWNER,STORAGE SHED OCCUPIED BY FAMILY MEMBERS
FOLIO NO: 37014680007
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 681 11TH STREET SW.NAPLES,FL 34117
8. CASE NO: CESD20110013644
OWNER: GISELLE&ALEJANDRO MELENDI
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i)ATTACHED GARAGE ENCLOSURE AND
TURNED INTO LIVING SPACE,DETACHED GARAGE AND SWIMMING POOL WITH
ENCLOSURE BUILT WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS
FOLIO NO: 40865680007
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 3680 4TH AVENUE SE NAPLES,FL 34117
9. CASE NO: CESD20110014115
OWNER: OSLAY FERNANDEZ
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a)A SCREEN ENCLOSURE WITH CANCELLED PERMIT#2005033480
ALSO A POOL, DECKING AND SHED TYPE STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY
WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS
FOLIO NO: 38902360001
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 4120 68TH AVE.NE.NAPLES,FL 34120
10. CASE NO: CEPM20100019476
OWNER: ERICK DORESTIL& ELVITA PIERRE
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA
VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,2010 EDITION,CHAPTER 4, SECTION 424.2.17,
ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231(15)NO PROTECTIVE
BARRIER SECURING THE SWIMMING POOL. SWIMMING POOL PERMIT
EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
FOLIO NO: 40527040008
VIOLATION
ADDRESS: 3661 12TH AVE.NE NAPLES,FL 34120
B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive
Summary.
8. REPORTS
9. COMMENTS
10. NEXT MEETING DATE- September 27,2012
11. ADJOURN
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. 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 item will receive up to five
minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman.
All parties participating in the public hearing are aske s
observe Roberts Rules of Order, speak one at a time so t tA e court
reporter can record the statements being made.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision ° board will
need a record of the proceedings pertaining the to •d ° erefore may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro a i gs is made,
which record indicates (sic) the testimony d e idence upon which
the appeal is to be based. Neither Collie l ar nor the Code
Enforcement Board shall be respo i :e � providing this record.
And can we have the roll call to
MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Ro. ' ►�aufman?
CHAIRMAN KALIF►4 IN , w,' ere.
MS. CRAWLEY: f erald Lefebvre?
MR. LEFEB VRE: Pre- -nt.
MS. CRA ` Y: Kir. Tony Marino?
MR. MA t Here.
MS. C ' °°- Y E : Mr. Ronald Doino, Jr.?
MR. s 11 1 4 •
Here.
C " • EY: Mr. Larry Mieszcak?
'i ESZCAK: Here.
IlltS CRAWLEY: Mr. James Lavinski?
R. LAVINSKI: Here.
MS. CRAWLEY: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused
absence, and Mr. Chris Hudson and Mr. Ken Kelly are absent.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And that means that Ron will
Page 2
August 23, 2012
be a voting member of the board.
MR. MIESZCAK: You got that?
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You got that?
MR. DOINO: Got that.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any agenda
changes?
ko-
MS. CRAWLEY: Under four, public hearings/motion rr
motions, motion for continuance, there are two addition
ber one
is number five from hearings, Iris Labrie, Case CESDa0 1016035.
The second addition under motion for continua- number two
from hearings: Steve and Alice Poseley, CES ���� i 0° 351.
Under motion for extension of time, we a11 r•• "a e two additions.
The first one is Martha Menendez Cruz, C- - CSD20110014160.
The second is number nine from i • ih n of fines: Oslay
Fernandez, Case CESD201100141aza
Under C, hearings, number t • = nse CESD20110016681,
KRG 951 and 41 LLC has bee ,, • .rawn.
Number six, Case C r, U ►`°�i `0012040, Westbury Quail Gardens,
LLC has been withdraw IP
Number nine, Case C D20110015021, Kluver Trust, Dawn
Commercial Trus eal rust, has been withdrawn.
Number 1y&, t wner for Case CESD20110006530, should be
Park East D- • • s ment Ltd.
We h. - addition, which is number 12. Case
CEP ,A1210 2335, Robert P. Hendricks and Amanda E. Hendricks.
4 - we, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens,
b, even, Case CESD20110007803, Larry W. Fox, has been
wit " £° awn.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion to approve the
amended agenda?
(At which time, Mr. Hudson enters the boardroom.)
Page 3
August 23, 2012
MR. MARINO: Motion to approve.
MR. MIESZCAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor?
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
eAtik,N
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. 1,,,„„%-4,*
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. 4rict,
MR. DOINO: Aye.
'Si
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? . ,g
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries u• - i ously.
I'd just like to notice that Chris Hu' • dp s joined us this
�w.
morning. You'll have to stay after ' o �s or .eing late, but he will be
a full voting member because we o people who are excused or
absent.
Okay, I guess that br• • t Othe first --
MS. CRAWLEY f 10 on
e?
or rehearing.
CHAIRMAN KAUF • N: Yes.
MS. CRA - Y: 4obert E. and Colleen Rossomando, Case
CEOCC201201 02 '' :.
CHAI ' • • UFMAN: Before we do that, I just wanted to
get a moti i ! . oprove the minutes.
' L• INSKI: Motion to approve.
it ' AN KAUFMAN: We have a motion.
L ' MARINO: Second.
7 • IRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second.
All those in favor?
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
Page 4
August 23, 2012
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOING: Aye.
04,„\-
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. rZik you
Okay, good morning.
tiikN
MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, members of t r b :rd. My
name's Jeff Wright, for the record. I'm an Assi .nt 4 u qty Attorney.
This is our motion that's before you today todayl.PAt d y counterpart
here is Mr. Jeff--
MR. PERLOW: I'm Jeffrey Perlo • ` Rossomandos. Good
morning.
THE COURT REPORTER game?
MR. PERLOW: Perlow, P `- -O-W.
MR. WRIGHT: First 4 trust that you all received a copy of
our motion and the attac�i nts to the motion. It should be in your
agenda packet. And we lay •�ut our arguments in that motion. And I'm
going to go throw some of them, if you'll allow me.
CHAP 'A . A UFMAN: Sure.
MR. T: First of all, we rarely request a rehearing. We
defer to yo • gs and we normally treat them as sacrosanct and we
don't r c e re you've s on what ou've alread decided.
Y
se was a rare one We find it troubling that the result of
t• = ru : in our view was to allow a commercial use where
co , ercial uses aren't allowed. And if I may, on June 28th -- the
history of this case real quick -- this was presented before you and
there was a 4-3 vote. There was a lot of back and forth. It was over at
the Horseshoe building. And there was a few requests for additional
Page 5
August 23, 2012
people to be present. For example, there's a County Attorney memo
that was submitted to the board as evidence objected to, and there was
some comments from the board, geez, I wish he was here to answer
some of these questions. So when I reviewed the record, I feel li --
first of all, we feel like we've met the standard for a rehearing.
And under your rules, a rehearing -- I'm just going to go • 11°
some of the fundamentals of a rehearing request. There wer •
grounds on which you can grant a rehearing request. Fir t the
decision in the first hearing was contrary to the evide econd, that
the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law. • ''er one of
those can be present as a basis for granting a rc a 7. otion. We
think that both of those grounds are present, as � o lied in my
motion.
First off, the first of those two pro standard that the code
enforcement's decision was contra' t' evidence, we had a plain
admission from the respondent at t -aring that he operates an Inn.
He's listed on the website as an eper. And when you look at the
zoning district, it's Estates . and you look at the uses that are•
allowed in that zoning d' t,= -nns, Hotels, Transient Lodging
Facilities don't pop up.
And if I may .ke step back on zoning ordinances, generally the
way they wor you're in a particular zoning district, you're
wondering a ou can do on your property. For example, if you
wanted to • bar at your house, you look to that zoning district,
reside,w 1, no see if you're allowed to do that It doesn't say what
you' e owed to do, it lists those things that you are allowed to
(If p rmitted uses, conditional uses which can be separately
app d for and accessory uses.
When you look at the permitted conditional accessory uses
allowed in this district, there's nothing of a commercial nature.
In addition, our Growth Management Plan does not contemplate
Page 6
August 23, 2012
commercial activity in this zoning district. So I'm back to my
argument on the evidence.
We believe with the plain admission from somebody saying they
operate an inn in this zoning district, to find that that's okay, that hat
commercial activity is okay, despite it not being anywhere in that.
zoning district's list of uses, we believe it's contrary to the evi.,-
You have a plain admission, it doesn't match the zoni .strict.
We believe it's contrary to the evidence. So that's the fir e g, we
believe there's a basis there for granting our rehearing. ilk- - -st.
The second prong is kind of related. It's really o separate
these completely, but that the order involved a. -rr�' a n'`a ruling of
law which was fundamental to the board's deci i .
Again, we believe that the Code Enfo -m=nt Board's decision
had the effect of changing the zoning di '040 allow transient
lodging, which is not currently all e ' ' a commercial use
We also -- well, there's two s. rulings of law that I believe
that there were errors on First tie m ing was inconsistent with the
language and intent of the . I i I evelopment Code, particularly with
respect to unauthorized b.,f ercial uses within the Estates zoning
district. You can't have corn ercial uses out there.
Number two he decision was inconsistent with the county's
Growth Mana;° ` 'Ian, Golden Gate Master Plan, which does not
contemplate ` E' pe of commercial use within the zoning district.
Finall se e are some arguments back and forth about we don't
operat- : he el. There's a statute that defines hotel. Well, that statute
also -- you to register your hotel, get a license, go through
i - e o� s. So it seems to me that they want to have their cake and
eat hey don't want to be subject to that statute, but they do want to
point to the definition within there to point out that they're not a hotel.
We don't care about that statute; we don't believe it applies here. We
have an LDC that spells out what you can and can't do, and the use
Page 7
August 23, 2012
that they are currently enjoying on that property, advertising on that
property, is not in the list of authorized uses in the zoning district.
So we believe that therefore there was an error on a ruling of law
that was fundamental to the decision.
Finally, that hotel statute, it was suggested that there might ■
conflict between the statute and our ordinance, and I would ju IC, t
out that under your rules, literally the rules say that you are ", out
jurisdiction to hear any argument that our ordinance is i .ft ict with
the state statute. Now, that's not where we're hanging r.-, at on this
one We really think that there was -- the decision A e ntrary to the
evidence and involved an error on a ruling of l a 7 w-'ve met the
standard.
Really we're not out to tip the apple c._ , e just re-reviewed the
proceedings, saw that was a 4-3 vote, s it here was a couple
requests for additional people to b; : , and we want to get it
right. And we respectfully request 41.0 ou grant a rehearing.
And if so, there is a linger' I . •tter here. Its the occupational
license. And that matter w, brought to you It's never been
adjudicated. And what ' - opose to do to make this complete and get
it right is to bring this back ; a future hearing, probably in September,
and address both • thoee pending violations -- well, one has already
been decided, • .ccupational license in tandem with this use
question that a 've already decided on
So wiK • . I request a rehearing. Thank you
C - I "AN KAUFMAN: Okay.
" RLOW: Respectfully, the plaintiff is asking for a
rte'ea 1because the plaintiff disagrees with a very close decision.
Thai not a reason to ask for a rehearing.
In its memorandum, the plaintiff states, and I'm quoting, this very
close vote followed considerable deliberation and debate.
This wasn't a hasty decision. There was a lot of testimony taken.
Page 8
August 23, 2012
It was deliberated by the board. And because it was a close decision, a
4-3 decision, they're asking for a rehearing. That's not -- again, that's
not a basis for a rehearing. It's also not a basis for a rehearing that you
should have brought in testimony that you didn't bring in, that yo
didn't like how the testimony went, that you introduced a letter fro
an attorney that said six months is okay, but renting your propikett6ut
once in a while is not okay.
Y
The Rossomando's live on this property. Their mot r aft -law
lives on this property. Once in a while they rent out re - So we
didn't try to change any zoning ordinances, as is al : = .y the
plaintiff in its memorandum. That's not what t b• + •id. There was
no error on a rule of law that was fundamental t e a ecision. There
was not one statute pointed out, there was ,t o e case law pointed
out I
It was the opinion of the plai Is Iktis memorandum that your
decision changed the zoning. Is th. � at your board thinks you did? I
don't think so. I think the board ' s dered all the facts, all the
circumstances, and decide. ' ere was not a violation. That's not
enough to say we want t*,t iT right, we want to try again, we want to
bring in another testimony at's not why you get a rehearing. You
get a rehearing bed:use it's against the weight of the evidence or there
was a mistake • ,'`thy ' terpretation of the evidence. Again, that wasn't
done here. T 'v ar. heard all the evidence. Everything was
considere e : 'has brought before the board, and the board ruled that
there . nit a violation in this case.
•711 : _ain, there was no error of a rule of law that was pointed
o ,rnin , m memorandum or pointed out here today that was
fun:: ental to this decision. There's no case law, there's nothing that's
been pointed out that would justify a rehearing on this matter. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments?
Page 9
August 23, 2012
MR. WRIGHT: Well, just in reply to that, I would point out that I
did spell out why the decision was contrary to the evidence, and I did
spell out the two specific errors on rulings of law, and I specified that
as a matter of policy we want to get it right. That's the frosting. T e
cake is already there. We've met the standard.
And the suggestion that we are just -- and I even said we' '. _ s1
hanging our hat on that We're not We're not hanging our . ' si the
idea that we need to get it right. But I think that it's an i ‘ sillk nt
policy point to make you aware of That's all I have
MR. PERLOW: And again, a very close deci ' i m happy with
a close decision. That's not enough to ask for h " n_,: It can't be a
best out of three here. The board heard the ma i s entirety.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. AiesT ments from the
board?
s .ger<o)
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: • 4 ? otions from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFi.4 • - Any discussion from the board?
.
Go ahead. t`}
<;C
MR. MARINO: No I asn't going to say anything. I was going
to throw it to you
CHAP
• UFMAN: Of course.
It was -- -member the case distinctly and I remember the first
comment t Li made by Mr. Hudson who said that he would have
expect- th.t t e County Attorney would have been here at the time
And - ber the vote and I reread the case, that because the
Cun • ttorney was not here the respondent had nobody to
cro xamine as far as the evidence was concerned.
Any comments from you, Chris, on that?
MR. HUDSON: I mean, I'm glad to see that you guys are here
now, and I certainly understand the arguments you've laid out. But I
Page 10
August 23, 2012
also understand Mr. Perlow's argument, that this isn't the best of three
situations here. County Attorney's Office should have been there with
a contentious case like this, or at least have had some input so that we
weren't just standing there listening to Mr. Perlow back and forth with
the code enforcement investigator, which I think he probably co 1
have used some support. And the code enforcement investigat
argument was sound as well at the time
But looking at it from a legal perspective, there wa ybody
for Mr. Perlow to engage and so I still stand with my ' •' •• al decision
that you guys should have been there the first time..r.': ''i u h looking
g
at your memorandum here certainly makes se . ID
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, if I could j s d u ress that. I want
to point out, it wasn't a matter of not being .,ere when we need to be
there. We like to be there whenever the Oontentious issue. That
was kind of a perfect storm of fact- t t u ted in our not attending
'1_
that hearing. It was at the off site, . believe it was the same day as
the board's budget hearing. So - .14 have -- we had to decide how to
allocate our limited resour s
And we did provid- iout, a written input. Not intended to be
evidence, but intended to suport our position. So I just wanted to
explain that to yo * h we weren't there.
CHAP • UFMAN: As I recall from that hearing, there
were a coupl '.' 'terns that were brought up that we could probably
hash aroun . i e bit now Number one, the item of occupational
licens- r .as rought up. That was number one
N ..-r two, there was an item that was brought up regarding the
c le ` a says what you can do or can't do. There were no prohibitive
wo to running a bed and breakfast, if you will.
Any comments on the items that I'm bringing up?
MR. MARINO: I agree with you on those.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Also, the fact that the respondent was
Page 11
August 23, 2012
paying taxes and the county was receiving taxes that were earmarked I
guess for the tourist development tax that was also brought up at the
hearing.
Do you have any comments on that?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, I would say that paying taxes on a pro
is not necessarily a defense to a zoning infraction. We work a . . to
constitutional office from the Tax Collector. I know from a eie :: ances
sake, well, they're paying the county money, they must • horizing
it But they're paying a different Constitutional Office a - -y and we
don't get involved in any of that We have a code w `: a to enforce.
That's the only thing. I realize outwardly ' .119 t. ., o look right,
but the fact that they're paying taxes is not disp 1 v- of the question
whether or not it's allowed.
lib
MR. PERLOW: If I may, the Ross . ;Ps s were paying taxes,
but they also spoke to numerous o �� e city regarding what
they were doing on the way to pay't:� ose taxes. So they approached
several people regarding what t-,- ere doing.
CHAIRMAN KAUF 4 ' kay, I believe Mr. Bellows testified
when he was before us t II a was a use that is not part of the
zoning. '
MR. WRIG °: IVd. Chairman, if I may add to your comment on
the prohibited 1 n ' 's not -- inns aren't listed in this zoning as
prohibited. , it's very rare to find a list of prohibited uses.
Back No,io .oint about operating a bar out of your house, you're
not go'. e. to find in residential that bars are prohibited, but they are
And .7 : e rohibited because they're not in the list of authorized
y d
'le � just wanted to clarify that point.
R. PERLOW: If I may, and I don't want to prolong this, they
testified -- testimony was brought in last time that if you were renting
for six months, that was okay. That's also not listed in the ordinance.
So the plaintiff came in and said six months was okay, but what you're
Page 12
August 23, 2012
doing is not okay. But six months isn't listed either. So technically
according to their argument that's a prohibited use. But they said that
was okay. So it was very confusing.
Again, the board considered all of this in making a decision This
was fully heard the first time. All of the testimony was heard. So
to just pick out things isn't fair to the Rossomandos.
MR. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes.
MR. HUDSON: I have a question for the Coun . . ,t rney.
Actually, could you comment on that? That w - of my big
3„az+
questions that day was the two time frames: O a• a time frame
where the Rossomandos were paying their taxe a d is sort of comes
up. I believe they were running this entity q ite some time with no
one stopping them until this point. •
My other question was, what i a mber, if you will? What is
the number of days that makes it a i . or doesn't make it a rental?
You know, I think that's import
MR. WRIGHT: Wel , re. I realize there could be better
clarity in our code, I wil #•mi that. When I look at the definitions in
our code, there is a definition 'where: Transient lodging facility (i.e.,
less than six mon oc(pancy.)
So there i . r‘. - ence in the code. It's not perfectly drafted, but
there is a ref- . , e in the code that says a transient lodging facility is
less than s ,.•o P s occupancy.
G , l e way I see it, no matter how you slice it, we're talking
abo . IX-: rental. So in my view it's hypothetical to think, well,
c to 1. s e six months there, could I do three months, could I do seven
mo s, could I do 12 months? What can I do? That's something that
we can sit down with them and tell them. You know, I think our
position is six months is okay. Six months or more is fine. But the
reference in the LDC definition to a transient lodging facility being
Page 13
August 23, 2012
less than six months in my view establishes that's what a transient
lodging facility is, anything less than six months. In his case, his
client's case, they're doing it daily, so they're not even close to that
bar.
MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, if I could remind the board, this is
to rehear the case today, it's simply -- and there's clearly a lot 'f '
questions. It is simply a request to come back to you at a la - to and
hear the facts that are being discussed right now
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. PERLOW: Again, those facts were brow, o evidence
last time And the plaintiff is correct, there co �• b- -tt r clarity in
the ordinance, and that was one of the reasons - board found
there was no violation. So everything was 4;nsi•ered the first time
And I think it's again unfair to bring i n . .ii- • r E al facts now, or ask the
board to reconsider other matters t r • `n' before it the first time
Everything you've heard today wa' : Ore the board the first time
when you voted.
AN
CHAIRMAN KAUF i AO ave one question.
Based on what the -111. g was at the time, are you saying that that
means that the Code Enforc p ment Board is by their decision, a 4-3
decision, that any t • •y eould open up a bed and breakfast out in
Golden Gate E- .:t--7
MR. 144 or T: That's the precedent that we don't want to set.
And that's e want to have a rehearing, to get it right. There's
traffic cl s, there's planning concerns, and it literally violates our
Grog, • agement Plan, which creates a big problem for residents
. iti,
"
R. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes.
MR. HUDSON: For the County Attorney, wouldn't this just go
before the Board of County Commissioners? I mean, wouldn't this be
Page 14
August 23, 2012
something that you would just take before the board if this issue was
unresolved here?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, typically you are a standalone forum and
you are a tribunal that makes decisions on these code issues. The
normal path for a dispute in a code enforcement case is not throw
the Board of County Commissioners. You know there's been ,it 4 0*I
exceptions, because they want to serve the citizens if there' ssue
that's appropriate for their consideration. But generally i V dispute
a decision that the Code Enforcement Board has enter,.,--, su can
request a rehearing or you can hear it after that and ove for an
appeal in circuit court. So that's the normal pa 'M s in to prevent
the Rossomandos from getting up to the podiu a d aking their plea
to the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. PERLOW: And again, resec `f you rent for
something under six months, acco x4 ing,NTiv at the plaintiff is saying,
if we come back and if it's establis - tat you can rent for six months
but you can't rent for under six 4- s, is the board then establishing a
precedent that five month lation of the ordinance, five and a
half months is in violati our months is in violation? And so they're
asking you to set a precede .
I think the b w.' d as concerned about setting a precedent in this
case regarding �s- 9 e period. And that's why it was determined that
the Rossoma t- were not in violation of the ordinance.
MR. ,7 • T: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the suggestion geez, I
don't A.-4w 4 i s six months, five months, four months, would three
mon e - we're not dealing with any of those. We're dealing with
1
r-ntals. And there's no way to view a nightly rental as anything
but -:nsient, in my view.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any --
MR. PERLOW: Again, that was heard last time.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand.
Page 15
August 23, 2012
Any comments from the board?
MR. MIESZCAK: One comment. This is residential zoning,
right? It's R what --
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: RSF-1, I believe.
MR. WRIGHT: It's actually Estates zoning. And within the
Estates zoning it's very similar to residential for our purposes. 4 OW
MR. MIESZCAK: So Section 2.02.03 does apply, an. . 's why
I voted against it last time and I'm still against it Thank 6
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to mak • .tion to
bring it back?
MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, I'd love to make �c�am 'o for the
county to bring it back. I think it would be bett- u d rstanding for all
of us, and all fair play for everybody conc q ed.
MR. LAVINSKI: I second it
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: have a motion and a
second.
Any discussion on the mo
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KA .11114 A : All those in favor'?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOIN• . A y
CHAI ' A UFMAN: Aye.
MR. MI ' C • : Aye.
MR. A 1 1O: Aye.
C AI4v A N KAUFMAN: '
Opposed.
FEBVRE: Nay.
IRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, passes 6-1 -- one, two, three,
fou " ve, six, seven, 6-1.
Okay, so it will be coming back.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.
MR. PERLOW: Thank you.
Page 16
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Colleen, who's up?
MS. CRAWLEY: We're now on to motion for continuance.
Number one, Iris Labrie. Case CESD20110016035.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was a motion originally.
(Investigator Pulse was duly sworn.)
INVESTIGATOR PULSE: For the record, Dee Pulse.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you -- t
respondent is not here. Give us your comments on the c
INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Okay. For the record: % Pulse,
Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a req t h- continuance,
not the actual case.
INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the or --
(Investigator Joe Mucha was dulyytio�
µ.r
INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: o.SiNTecord, Joe Mucha, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
We have no issue with co g this case to next month's
hearing.
CHAIRMAN KAU q A A * : Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Ma'e a motion to continue.
MR. LAV :� I: econd.
CHAI ' A UFMAN: We have a motion and a second to
continue this = til= the next meeting.
All th - avor?
• SON: Aye.
0 INO: Aye.
IRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
NVI . LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
Page 17
August 23, 2012
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you, it will be heard at
the next hearing.
MS. CRAWLEY: Second motion for continuance is numbe two
from hearings, Steve and Alice Poseley, Case CESD20120001351.
(Investigator Dee Pulse was duly sworn.) 4'.b'
INVESTIGATOR PULSE: For the record, Dee Pulse 'er
County Code Enforcement Investigator.
And the county has no problem with issuing a co ance.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You see progress met?
INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion.
MR. MIESZCAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We haition and a second to
extend it till next month.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. '\''
CHAIRMAN KAUFMA • ' next month.
All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: A
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMA FMAN: Aye.
MR. LEF : : Aye.
MR. M : - CAK: Aye.
MR. 1 O: Aye.
Cs ,A I `AN KAUFMAN:
MAN. Opposed.
er4 ° ponse.)
16 4714 IRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
S. CRAWLEY: We're now on to motion for extension of time.
Number one, Martha Menendez Cruz, Case CESD20110014160.
(Veronica Cruz Fernandez and Investigator Eric Short were duly
sworn.)
Page 18
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was added at the last minute to
our package, so we have a little juggling around. Give us a minute to
review it.
MR. MARINO: What number is that?
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Put at the end. Al\i,
MR. MIESZCAK: One of these.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The one with all the capit
MR. MARINO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. How ou?
MS. FERNANDEZ: Fine.
I'm here because we were granted until y c en"! t complete
this home. I came back to the states to finish it tr parents because
they're older, but when we got back, we no ed that we had other
costs involved due to two special itemsz 41 weren't aware of
Someone rode over our septic to �1 i s$4,500 to fix it and be
able to pass that inspection. lib
Also we had a site draina• -- o- use we are on a 75-foot lot, and
that fence we had to put u. ; . _other 2,000 something dollars. And
we only have really one 1 n inspection to go, which is our
right-of-way, and that's goi • to be $2,600. And my parents don't have
all the funds et. - really I'm here to ask for an extension y tension to give us
just a little bit , r •' e. That's the only thing we have left on the
property to c e 1,0. ete.
CHA !,4 KAUFMAN: How much time do you think you'll
need? ink
RNANDEZ: I'm really looking at about three months, if
yG c. _ive me at least that, or a little bit more so that -- I just want
to he funds together to finish up that project.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. County, do you have any
problem with an extension on this?
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric
Page 19
August 23, 2012
Short, Collier County Code Enforcement.
As Ms. Fernandez said, she's real close to completing this, you
know, and finalizing the permits, so the county has no objection.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend the time
period for 150 days.
MR. LAVINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a s-_ • -8 . All
those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye. "ON
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: • I:
August 23, 2012
MR. MARINO: I have it under number 19.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Eric?
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: At this point the county has no
objection, as Ms. Hole requested. You know, it looks like 30 day is
what she's asking for, and the property's not bank owned, so --
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question, and that' `e
the operational costs been p aid?
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: They have not
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily if this wa-,-^ome before
us just on the imposition of fines, if we find that the .ational costs
have not been paid and neither has the prope of in o compliance,
we would impose the fine. So I'm hard pressed'' _��a t an extension.
They're not here. I'm relying personally o our testimony in this case.
Any comments from the board?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, cou e ents. First of all, it states
that -- I assume that the bank is way s o physically take possession
of this property; is that correct.
INVESTIGATOR S S . hat is correct.
MR. LEFEBVRE: A',6111#2 it says the foreclosure is not yet
scheduled. So the foreclosu has to be scheduled, there actually has to
be a sale, the ba has to take the certificate of title. So that's going to
be way more ti '°1 ays. So we're going to be right back here in 30
days.
I'm in e-- ent with Mr. Kaufman, I don't think that we should
grant 'au,—xt nson due to the fact that first of all the fee's not been
paid is just going to linger for an unknown amount of time
S }I t ' that we should impose the fines. Because otherwise if we
don'' pose the fines, if we don't impose the fines then the fine of
$11,800 plus the operational costs would -- $11,800 would go away.
So I think we should impose the fines.
I make a motion to impose the fines.
Page 21
August 23, 2012
MR. MARINO: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. AC
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. AnN
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response.)
fib
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carrie' J ously.
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: ;+ " u.
MS. CRAWLEY: I just want rift' on that that we denied the
motion for extension of time --
CHAIRMAN KAUF■• 4 AO . at's correct.
MS. CRAWLEY: then we can -- would you like to bring it
back under motion for imp e ition of fines?
CHAIRMA A eFMAN: Yes.
MS. C ' a. Okay.
CHAI ,. A UFMAN: This will come up in the imposition,
unless we ,III rd modify the agenda and hear that right now
F BVRE: Since it's in front of us --
WSON: It's not on the agenda for today, is it
A IRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah.
S. CRAWLEY: It's number nine.
MR. MARINO: Or 19, according to the schedule.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. We have the same.
MR. MARINO: Right.
Page 22
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm glad to see you struggling to find
it, Jean. That makes me feel better.
MR. LEFEBVRE: It's at the very bottom.
MS. RAWSON: I thought number nine was Fernandez.
MS. CRAWLEY: That is correct. Oslay Fernandez. That's t
hearing.
MS. RAWSON: Okay. Are we talking about Menend z?
MS. CRAWLEY: She was heard --
MR. LEFEBVRE: Last. ACkflic
MS. CRAWLEY: -- the last one
MS. RAWSON: Okay, I got it
MR. MARINO: Number 19 on our new li-I" n_s.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll acce p motion to modify the
agenda so that we can hear this particul nder imposition now
MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to 'of,.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: gii, . e a motion.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second
CHAIRMAN KAUF i AE d a second.
All those in favor? a
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOIN! A y .
CHAI ' -' : A UFMAN: Aye.
MR. LE'-- : V : Aye.
MR. CAK: Aye.
' VT O: Aye.
` A N KAUFMAN: Opposed?
,,,,QHA
s''response.)
IRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose a fine.
MR. MARINO: I'll second it.
Page 23
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
F
No response.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That carries Nay.
Yes, Colleen?
MS. CRAWLEY: If we may, we're j go ng to read the
executive summary into the record. f
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: IIa
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Ft --'16 record, Investigator Eric
Short, Collier County Code En r -, ° ent.
This is dealing with ' al. " t s of the Collier County Land
Development Code 04-4_Its amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a).
Location: 4120 Eighth A venue Northeast, Naples, Florida,
34120. Folio No 90 60001.
This is a �"e • enclosure with cancel Permit No 2005033480.
Also a pool, . 5 ing and shed type structures on the property without
Collier Co -rmits.
O. • 1341 6th, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a
find' . ct, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found ` iolation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the *lotion. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4795, Page 312
for more information.
The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement
Board's order as of August 23rd, 2012.
Page 24
August 23, 2012
Jennifer also claimed that her grandson Scott is not staying with them.
And the last she heard he was staying with friends since the power had
been shut off Monday, the 13th.
On August 22nd I made a site visit with Corporal Villa and
Corporal Lucere with Collier County Sheriffs Office and obsery e
electrical meter has not moved since my initial site visit on th
2012.
Violation remains. 0
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, ordinarily on type of
violations, we've heard them in the p ast, it's a safe - ealth issue,
so I guess the first -- any questions from the b • . 1 e_in with?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We need se if we find them in
violation or not
• ,, N„,..-rV
Any motions?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a m t flitii,' a violation does exist.
MR. DOINO: Second. . '
CHAIRMAN KALIF_ 4 4.4 a have a motion and a second.
All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOIN/ : Ay .
CHAI ' 4 A UFMAN: Aye.
MR. L : Aye.
MR. CAK: Aye.
O: Aye.
.5--
*RMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
.
y o response.)
A IRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
So they are in violation.
And do you have a suggestion, Eric?
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: The county recommends that the
Page 28
August 23, 2012
Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational
costs in the am of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case
within 30 days and abate all violations by, one: Restoring the
electricity to the dwelling with an active account with Lee Coun
Electric Cooperative, or vacating the dwelling until such a time
-- til
such time that the electricity is restored with an active accoun
Lee County Electric Cooperative within blank days of this 1 g, or
a fine of blank dollars and blank cents per day will be i . for
each day the violation continues.
�a,
Two Provide an adequate hot and cold water , . -f to all
plumbing fixtures in the dwelling or vacatin g . ling until such
time that an adequate hot and cold water suppl a se provided to all
plumbing fixtures within blank days of thi i ea ng or a fine of blank
dollars and blank cents per day will be i-_ ," for each day the
•violation continues.
Three: The respondent must to the code enforcement
investigator when the violation i a- 4 -en abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confi i efr e ent. If the respondent fails to abate
the violation, the county 1014 a sate the violation using any method to
bring the violation into corn: lance and may use the assistance of the
Collier County S a iff Office to enforce the provisions of this order,
and all costs o m l .a ent shall be assessed to the property owner.
MR. LE R. V ° : Couple questions. The Lee County -- or Lee
Cooperati t' nk you said it was?
E I ATOR SHORT: Yes.
��' FEBVRE:
��� What's the outstanding bill'? Is there a water
• 4 o e nding at all'?
Pr AIRMAN KAUFMAN: They have a well
MR. LEFEBVRE: Or electric.
MR. DOINO: Electric.
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Any information -- any further
Page 29
August 23, 2012
information other than her -- Claudia with Lee County Electric
Cooperative, she would not give any further information other than
service had been interrupted.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Are they in foreclosure?
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: The property is in lis pendens. N),,
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we give them thr - ;1p.r s
from the date of this hearing or a fine of$500. And that wo e also
for number two.
MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motio second. Any
discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I guess t -e d ys would probably be
F
the minimum amount of time to enable 'd put up a deposit of
whatever is required for the electri r, c --wily to turn the service back
on. Ili ,
I have one question, thou_ i . ti ve mentioned hot and cold
water to each Is hot wate �f i - a', or is it just water?
MR. MIESZCAK: a er.
INVESTIGATOR SH F . T: It is required.
CHAIRMA KA FMAN: Hot and cold, okay.
Okay, we ' v motion and a second. All those in favor?
MR. IN: Aye.
MR. c. 41 1 4 : Aye.
C I °4V KAUFMAN: Aye.
iirt
' FEBVRE: Aye.
R MIESZCAK: Aye.
R. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Eric.
Page 30
August 23, 2012
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Thank you.
MS. CRAWLEY: We are now back at number one. Case
CESD20120004317, Pacifica Laurel Ridge LLC, Pacifica Companies,
LLC.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I had one question while we're -N4,- e
young lady back here with the two people, little people who waf
testify, is it possible to move that case up so that -- I know i •
difficult that can be „if 111
MS. CRAWLEY: We can move that next. ork.)N
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks.
(Investigator Jonathan Musse was duly s • .
MS. CRAWLEY: Case CESD201200043 , -s a ifica Laurel
Ridge, LLC. Violation of Collier County d 6 evelopment Code
04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B `
Description of violation: AC r • nstalled without valid
Collier County permits.
Location/address where vi i e n exists: 5543 Laurel Ridge
Lane, Unit 107, Naples, F •. is': ; �4116. Folio No 3618008008.
Name and address o e ner/person in charge of violation
yr
location: Pacifica Laurel Ri•ge. LLC, Pacifica Companies, LLC, care
of Danny Benne 36 east Sixth Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida,
32303.
Date vi o w n first observed: March 15th, 2012.
Date v •e X.erson in charge given Notice of Violation: March
26th, 2
® d ° .°° by which violation to be corrected: April 21st, 2012.
4 .t- of reinspection: May 25th, 2012.
esults of reinspection: Violation remains.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning.
INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Good morning. For the record,
Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement.
Page 31
August 23, 2012
I would now like to present the case in the following exhibits:
One photo taken by myself on March 15th, 2012, and Permit No.
PRHV2012081717401.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept --
MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept.
oessi\
MR. MIESZCAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. Al lel in
favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye. <SS.'
MR. DOINO: Aye.
N.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CS ___ '''''C'
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: •N#•. .
(No response.) d
CHAIRMAN KAUFMA
.1 ies unanimously.
INVESTIGATOR oirii onducted an initial inspection on
March 15th, 2012. As the an was showing me some property
maintenance issues she info ed me that Laurel Ridge Apartments
recently installed A handler.
I was abl o • in contact with the property manager, Hilda,
informed hers e violation. She stated that she did not realize that a
permit wa • d and will hire a contractor as soon as possible.
C,1 du ted numerous inspections, kept in contact with the
pro 7 n nager, no permit was ever issued.
at time I prepared the case to appear before the Code
En ement Board.
On August 16th, 2012, Permit No. PRHV20120817174 was
issued for the AC equipment. Permit is currently active and is pending
a final inspection, which is scheduled today.
Page 32
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the
board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The original complaint was no cr
conditioning in the unit or --
INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: They had some issues with
the inner tubes of the AC that runs through the unit. That w.i - -it
issue. And the tenant at that time just said that -- oh, by z 3 .y, they
recently installed this in here, so that's why I checked ' , that's all,
and saw they needed a permit.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well o• s i g the permit
has been pulled, anybody like to make a motio ki o s a violation
exist?
MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll make •1 that a violation does
in fact exist.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN• •itgNve have a motion, do we have
a second?
MR. MARINO: I'll s- o• .
CHAIRMAN KAU 1"A Seconded.
All those in favor?
MR. HUDS : e.
MR. DO A e.
CHAP KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. k.: ; RE: Aye.
' iE# ZCAK: Aye.
• . A RING: Aye.
• IRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
,,,,\ N
No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
Do you have a suggestion?
MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. I think that the respondent should pay the
Page 33
August 23, 2012
$81.43 in costs and that they be given 30 days to correct this or a fine
of$100 a day be imposed.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we saved you all this rea ing
time. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
N.
MR. MARINO: Aye. *g.'
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed'? • P`''q
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carrie' ; ously.
INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: • ' e u.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Does he h.q.i. 0 read it in?
MS. CRAWLEY: If we c.�
N
MR. LEFEBVRE: Y- t ould be read.
CHAIRMAN KAU 1.A A I thought we saved you
INVESTIGATOR SE: The county recommends that the
Code Enforceme 4`it odd order the respondent to pay all operational
costs in the a a.in 1 $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case
within 30 da i d agate all violations by Obtaining all required
Collier Co v :•ilding permits or demolition permits, inspection and
certifi o completion within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of
$101 iy will be imposed until the violation is abated.
-respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
wh- ' iolation 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
Page 34
August 23, 2012
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, thank you.
INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Thank you
MS. CRAWLEY: If we could amend the agenda. Under d
business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number f,,,Qpiase
CESD2011000679, Maderline and Edileydis Gonzalez. 1/40.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to modify th a • da?
MR. MIESZCAK: Second. II
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a m 'o dja second. All
those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A,L.e\AN'Iv%
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. . N'll
MR. MARINO: Aye
�
CHAIRMAN KA A : Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMA - FMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Good
morning. ,
MS. ' INE GONZALEZ: Hi, how are you?
(Mad I e onzalez, Edileydis Gonzalez and Investigator Tony
Asaro ; re u y sworn.)
- � d AN KAUFMAN: Okay, good morning.
yliai
,QHA
STIGATOR ASARO: Good morning.
IRMAN KAUFMAN: We have the -- he wants to testify. I
see that the operational costs have been paid; is that correct?
INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, they have.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the property is not in
Page 35
August 23, 2012
compliance.
INVESTIGATOR ASARO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you tell us a little bit
about what's going on?
MS. EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ: The whole construction is
already done. The only thing that we have that we didn't know. e
were in violation of was some trees that --
MS. MADERLINE GONZALEZ: The pepper tree 0
MS. EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ: Pepper trees th. were
supposed to take it out, we didn't know. And our b . , it's already
done, we already did three trucks of pepper tr=- - don't have --
we need a little bit of extension of the time bec i s- e don't have the
money to take all the trees out There's a 1•46e f t ees on the property,
there's almost three acres of that And, w, like the whole
construction's already done. You o I on t have any more to
take out the trees and stuff, so we (4 little bit more time That's
why -- we try to do the best, an'n 1' at's about it
CHAIRMAN KAUF► kay. And what say the county?
INVESTIGATOR A � Re : Repeat that, please?
CHAIRMAN KAUF . N: Your comments.
INVESTIG A •R ASARO: Actually, I spoke to Miguel
Gonzalez on s- -r: occasions and he's making every attempt to clear
the exotics • ' he property. It's just that his financial situation
doesn't ails- i i to proceed. So he does need some more time, in my
opinio R k .u E he is trying.
• A WLEY: Mr. Chair?
• IRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes.
k S. CRAWLEY: We'd like to -- the county would like to
withdraw this case right now.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, fine.
MS. CRAWLEY: Thank you.
Page 36
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MS. MADERLINE GONZALEZ: Thank you.
MS. CRAWLEY: Number four under hearings, Case
CELU20120007339, Timothy Todd Lainhart, Lori Renee Lainh ,
Anthony Ira Lainhart and Deana Renee Lainhart.
(Anthony Ira Lainhart, Todd Lainhart and Investigator Et Ort
were duly sworn.)
MS. CRAWLEY: Case CELU20120007339, Timo -030dd
Lainhart, Lori Renee Lainhart, Anthony Ira Lainhart .. ,141 can a
Renee Lainhart.
Violation of Collier County Land Develo- • e o 4 e 04-41, as
amended, Section 1.04.01(A), 2.02.03, and 10. .e O(1)(a).
Description of violation: A permitted ce sory structure with
unpermitted alterations with no princip. ure on the same parcel.
Location/arrest dress where v. s i exists: No site address.
Folio No 37692280007. f i _
Name and address of own , on in charge of violation
location: Timothy Todd L on Renee Lainhart Anthony Ira
Lainhart and Dean a Re - ainhart, 2531 Second Street Northwest,
Naples, Florida, 34120.
Date violati o firs observed: May 14th, 2012.
Date own; p' en in charge given Notice of Violation: May
15th, 2012.
Date: • hich violation to be corrected: June 15th, 2012.
D46,- o reinspection: July 25th, 2012.
' • of reinspection: Violation remains.
C P AIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning again, Eric.
VESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. For the record,
Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement.
I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits:
One copy of the most recent aerial obtained from the Collier County
Page 37
August 23, 2012
property appraiser's website, and one photo taken by myself, August
22nd, 2012, showing the structure.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the
photographs and the evidence?
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Actually, they have not. „„\
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you show,i460km
and then I'll entertain a motion to accept the evidence.
You might want to pull the mic up a little bit so we j. ear you
And do you have any problem with the items bei Ntered into
evidence?
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion c ept the --
MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. 0.0
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: ond. All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KALIF' 4 AirlYe.
MR. LEFEBVRE: • .
MR. MIESZCAK: Ay
MR. • ' : Aye.
CHAP 4,1 • UFMAN: Opposed?
(No res• e.)
CHA 4 • 'I KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
■ I ATOR SHORT: This case originated from a lien
sear Ilk ay 10th, 2012. The initial site visit was made on May
h, 1 where the steel structure with an attached lanai, an AC unit
an. ' F` lities were observed. It was also observed that no primary
structure existed on the structure.
After extensive research, I discovered the property had been split
in 1992, leaving the accessory structure on parcel number
Page 38
August 23, 2012
37692280007 and the primary structure on parcel number
37692340002. I also discovered the steel structure had originally been
permitted under Permit No. 860756 as an access building with no
utilities.
I have made several attempts to contact the Lainhart reside c
and had been unsuccessful until August 21st, where I was con
by Anthony Ira Lainhart.
Anthony claims he would like to resolve this issue. ver, the
violation remains.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good mop
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Good m e .s in e°h, just in
reference to this property, we've only owned it IP" is 't remember the
exact date, but it was like 2003 or so. But b lding was built prior
to us buying the property. And any viol . 4 ,i0T at might be existing
now were all done before we bout operty. But needless to say,
if it's -- you know, if it's not within ermitted process or whatever,
we'd like to do whatever it take • •rrect that But now as it exists,
the building has no electri ' � red on and there's nobody occupying
it It's sitting there simpl f a s ructure. I mean, there's nobody using
g
it. And we were just hoping e fact that it's not being used that -- I
mean, if you do r- ire us to tear it down that, you know, maybe
there's some w.: t we could do away with the violated part of it,
and maybe suld keep the part that was permitted some way,
somehow • esn't devalue the property that much more
g 7s it's probably, you know, worth 20 percent of what we
on ;Iry ought it for I mean, we stand to lose money on it So
ate e -- what we're -- we're willing to do whatever to satisfy any
vio ons. We want to cooperate, we're just -- we just -- you know.
We'll do whatever it takes to try to keep everybody happy.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the first thing, we have to find
out whether a violation exists or not.
Page 39
August 23, 2012
Any motions from the board?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, just it sounds like they're not sure what
to do in this particular case. Obviously they're able to get -- prior to
you owning it, the people that built it in '92 were able to get a pe. it
because it was all one parcel. Now that it's been split, that buildi •
not a primary building so you need one of two things, it soun. : 1 :
Either you have to tear it down or build a primary structure e ' e
property. Which would make that a -- not a violation. ..<111,
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Correct.
MR. LEFEBVRE: So there's one of two thin ` ou can do.
Obviously as it stands now you have -- there i' . vi N .ti en on the
property. So you have an option, either building " ri ary structure so•
that is now allowed, or tearing it down.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's - ' ept a motion to find
them in violation, if you want.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a that there is a violation.
CHAI ,mm
RMAN KAUFMAN e ave a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. LAVINSKI -i
CHAIRMAN KAUF A N: We have a second from Mr.
Lavinski.
All those ' ?
MR. "fi, ON: Aye.
MR. 11 1 4 : Aye.
C. A I I " A N KAUFMAN: Aye.
- . FEBVRE: Aye.
■Ilk
R. MIESZCAK: Aye.
R. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously.
Page 40
August 23, 2012
Did you -- prior to this hearing, did you discuss with the code
enforcement officer --
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- some of the possible solution to
the problem'?
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Yes, I did. Yes, I did per elPeto y.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And were any of them vi.. A
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Yeah, yeah, they're ∎ e. It's
just the fact that, you know, that the building is proba tie& ou know,
it's probably -- to build it, if you built it at today's c •robably 30
or $40,000. I mean, if we just have to -- if we ' t &, e o demolish
that building in order to make this okay, I mea fight as well -- I
mean, I guess we'll have to take that hit. B I ean, if that's what you
flib
require us to do, I mean, I guess that's wfletti k 011 have to do. I mean,
I'd like to avoid, you know, taking , ch more of a loss on the
property than what we've already i 1 c ed. But if that's what is
required, you know, I guess we' ye to do it
MR. LEFEBVRE: A i t other option would be to build a
primary structure on they eaning a house. That would be the other
option.
MR. ANTHP Y e AINHART: Right. I guess we just have to
weigh the cost ' 'vs d on which way to go in order to satisfy the
violations. A V ou know, we want to do whatever it takes to make
things righ ' ,
cr..- A I �4 • N KAUFMAN: Is it a case of when rather than how
muc . per words, if sufficient time was Y
ranted for you to do
g
w° ate e is required, would that help'?
im
R. ANTHONY LAINHART: Sure, that would help, if you can
give us some time. You know, I don't know -- I guess you talk to Eric
and take his suggestions. But yeah, if we had a little time to get this
resolved, we would def-- I mean, if it meant tearing it down or
Page 41
August 23, 2012
demoing it, yeah, that's what we would do.
MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at is there would be one
time period for if your decision was to tear it down, which I'm sure
was discussed. And then obviously for you to build a primary
structure there would be another time frame, which would be a l n r
time frame. So I'm just trying to find out what your -- I know -
four parties aside -- I assume probably husband and wife.
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Correct, yes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: So I'm just trying to figure ou ==t t your
ultimate goal is with this property. Do you plan on ng a house
and having this as an accessory structure or d uTP t Man on having
it sit there?
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Righ o know, we haven't
really pursued the thought of building a 7,0, structure on it But,
you know, I guess we should probe elk si a er that option more, I
mean, as far as rather than demoin d losing that much more
money on the building. You kn s a steel building and, you know,
it does have a certain amo it lue to it So yeah, we should
probably consider buildi �kW. primary structure and doing whatever it
takes to probably save that. would say that's probably something we
need to look into P v re ioroughly.
MR. LEF o ��' : As you saw in previous cases, we've had
people come = on of us for continuances. And whatever we do, if
you do de ' o let's say if we give you a time frame and you can't
meet ta e time frames but you decide to build a house, you can come
bac t of us. But the thing I want to stress is that it is very
1' 6,0 n" for us to see that there's progress being made to correct the
situ e'on, correct the violation.
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: I understand.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: In reference to the building, I
Page 42
August 23, 2012
know Eric has said a certain portion of it was permitted, and that was
before our time, naturally. And maybe there's violations with the
building as it is. If we could maybe take care of some of the violations
that involve -- I mean, that would be a progressive step to maybe what
you guys want, I mean --
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the main violation is that
building is there --
g
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Right. 0
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and there's no pri ' -,v .tructure.
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Right.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I don't thi t h- problem is
with the structure that's on the property.
Was this a five-acre parcel that was s edet in alf or -- do you
know, Eric?
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: v b�� a moment, please.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: � t ig was the --
MR. ANTHONY LAIN 'm thinking it was five
originally.
INVESTIGATOR ' R • Five or more
MR. ANTHONY LA r A ' T: I think it was five or more
originally, becaus F sit exists now it's over three. The parcel we own
is three -- a lift.- o three acres, so I assume that the parcel that the
house was on �_inally is probably a couple or so. I don't know for
sure.
C • I '.. • N KAUFMAN:U MAN. Were you looking to sell this piece of
pro. - ome oint?
p
R:,.ANTHONY LAINHART: It was -- originally that was the
pla + e bought it as an investment, yes.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And at this time it's off the
market?
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: It's off the market for various
Page 43
August 23, 2012
reasons, yes.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: The violation was created once the property
was split. It wasn't a violation up until it was --
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Exactly, correct. That's the
situation we're in, yes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So, I mean, as Mr. Kaufma 1 : ay,
correcting a vio -- there's nothing inherently wrong with ilding
because it's been permitted and everything, it's with w ' e previous
IP
owner did by splitting littin g it
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Right. A 41 I 'W.e stand the -- I
understand the situation, it needing a primary rl,i. n e. We
understand that It's just our investment di
' just 't s- 1 quickly and we've
got it now And it's devalued, naturally . • 1� e original p rice of what lk
g
we paid for it Which is the norm, i :3, i� e .We know that we're not
the only one in that situation, so --
MR. LEFEBVRE: Maybeie4p.n see what the recommendation,
county recommendation i
INVESTIGATOR ' R
Cid
: We recommend that the Code
Enforcement Board orders tie respondent to pay all operational costs
in the amount of '► : 3 .8 incurred in the prosecution of this case within
30 days and ab ,, - . violations by, one Obtaining all required Collier
County buil @ •; 'permits or demolition permit, inspections and
ate .
certificate • pletion/occupancy to build a principal structure and
return - accessory structure to its original permanent state, or
dem e e existing accessory structure within blank days of this
he.rin ®r a fine of blank dollars and blank cents per day will be
im ` -tied until the violation is abated.
Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate
Page 44
August 23, 2012
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 owne .
MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this property in foreclosure at all?
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Reminds me of-- is it Sole or
King David where you put the baby back together again`• � th• be you
could buy the house that's next door. That would reso Ne problem.
And then modify the --
MR. TIMOTHY LAINHART: Better yet a e cancel it to
the neighbors.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That also ou may be able to make
them an offer.
MR. LEFEBVRE: What I wo f 114 est or be inclined to do is
give them a period of time, let's sa 46 ays, to demolish the property
or get a certificate of completio® ich we know won't happen. But
I'd like to see them come . . ont of us and say either it's been
demolished or we decid e • pu l a permit and get this property --
build a house. I'd like to see -- give them 90 days and see where they
are, or 120. And '4 be &lined to extend that if they did pull a permit
to build a hous; • " ,o if they didn't pull permit, then they would need
to have the b r ' g demolished.
So I .motion that we give them 120 days from the date of
this he , ng or $150 a fine per day. And that way it will give them
time t e �� .e what they want to do. And again, if they apply to build
,l ouv , ` en obviously we would extend it And if they didn't, then it
wo '5 be -- building would have to be demoed.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The court fees of$80.86 to be paid
within 30 days part of--
MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes.
Page 45
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- your motion?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. MARINO: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a secon
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.) -4
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, seeing none, I'll e
question. All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. A _.. IC:14Cr
14449
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
ij
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: • . : ",ed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUF 4 At . carries unanimously.
So you have a time''IV 0 days to figure out what you're doing.
MR. ANTHONY LA a1, A ' T: Okay.
CHAIRMA =KA FMAN: It would be best if you would need
more time to c. i e . k to us before the 120 days expires and we'll go
from there a b •=`- what we need to do.
MR -: • •NY LAINHART: Okay, who would I contact? Do I
come , dn.' her meeting or the --
t. - A N KAUFMAN: Work it through Eric.
R ANTHONY LAINHART: Okay, through Eric? Okay, great.
IRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you.
MR. ANTHONY LAINHART: Thank you.
INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Thank you.
MS. CRAWLEY: Number seven, Case CENA20120006825,
Page 46
August 23, 2012
Gwendolyn Green.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cherie', do you need a break?
THE COURT REPORTER: Maybe after this?
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll hear one more case and t n
we'll take a break.
Okay, which case is this, Colleen? I'm sorry.
MS. CRAWLEY: Number seven.
MR. MARINO: Number seven in your book.
(Investigator Patrick Baldwin was duly sworn.)
MS. CRAWLEY: Case CENA20120006825, '9,'dolyn Green.
Violation of Ordinance Collier County C- a e ev17 a s and
Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54 '": . "
Description of violation: Litter consi g •`'` but not limited to
refuse, clothes, boxes, assorted metals, and wood tires, et
cetera
Location/address where viola's "�t xists: 3675 10th Avenue
Southeast, Naples, Florida, 341n ; I io No 410446400003.
Name and address of ' •erson in charge of violation
location: Gwendolyn Gre 1 1 3 5 10th Avenue Southeast, Naples,
Florida, 34116.
Date violati. firs observed: May 7th, 2012.
Date own; 1)4 an in charge given Notice of Violation: May 9th,
2012.
Date hich violation to be corrected: June 1st, 2012.
D n - o reinspection: July 16th, 2012.
'7 pi r of reinspection: Violation remains.
STIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning.
AIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Patrick.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin,
Collier County Code Enforcement.
I would like now to present case evidence in the following
Page 47
August 23, 2012
exhibits: Two photographs taken May 7th, 2012.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, anything else?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, that's it.
MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos.
MR. LAVINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second.
All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
- ,.,c'i
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Op os
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ili unanimously.
INVESTIGATOR BALD A ay 7th, 2012 I responded to an
anonymous complaint. I o® e vi .1 litter consisting of tires, clothes,
refuse, boxes, et cetera. I to i the property on May 9th, 2012, and
the courthouse. I have left s- eral notices and door hangers on the
property but I hav of ad a response. Today the violation still
remains.
This is . ‘ . •lly a recurring violation at this property. It appears
that they 11`.\ - t. age sales on the weekends and then they leave the
e7
stuff o tithe or a period of time The other times they abated the
viol.ti .ut this time still today, I mean, we're going back to May,
t Pi-.. s still out there on the ro e
p pY•
A IRMAN KAUFMAN: The house is not in lis pendens?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: There is a lis pendens that's been
filed on May 5th, 2012.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I accept a motion.
Page 48
August 23, 2012
MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion a violation exists.
MR. DOINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye. k), -
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. filliek4 4°1
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries u A i ously.
Do ou have a suggestion?
•
Y gg
INVESTIGATOR BALD ‘ hat the Code Enforcement
Board orders the respondent to pay . eperational costs in the amount
of$80.29 incurred in the prose of this case within 30 days and
abate all violations by on- 'lap e ing all litter to a site intended for
final disposal or stored I - e u items within a completely enclosed
structure within blank days d f this hearing or a fine of blank dollars
per er day will be i :®se - until the violation is abated.
Two Theses e '. g dent must notify code enforcement investigator
when the vio • ' n has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection . 'irm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the
violati - t ' county may abate the violation and may use the
assi . e� 4 the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the
p. ' _. s of this order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the c s perty owner.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you.
I'll tell you, I -- I wouldn't give them much time to fix this. This
is nothing more than going out there and picking up the stuff and
Page 49
August 23, 2012
putting it in the garbage can.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion.
MR. DOINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN. We have to do the days.
MR. LEFEBVRE: To pay all operational costs in the amou t
$80.29 incurred in the prosecution in this case within 30 days.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was thinkin g more on thoill of
three --
MR. LEFEBVRE: No, no, no, that's to pay the 8
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN. Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you want to do th_ ii o ?
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, go ah .
MR. LEFEBVRE: And within seven s of this hearing, or a
fine of$500 per day.
MR. MARINO: I'll second thyw
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN - e a motion and a second.
All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye OP ilC\*
MR. DOING: Aye
CHAIRMAN KAUF : Aye.
MR. LEFEB n 5 .. Aye.
MR. MIE -, ye.
MR. O: Ave
CHA ' � KAUFMAN: Opposed?
r. re "•onse.)
4 ' AN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
� STIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you
A IRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we're going to take a break.
We'll be back here at 10:30.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Call the Code Enforcement Board
Page 50
August 23, 2012
back to meeting.
And that brings us to the next case, Colleen?
MS. CRAWLEY: Number eight, Case CESD20110005345,
Grand Cypress Communities, Inc.
(Mr. Rolan Richard and Investigator Danny Condomina we e
duly sworn.)
MS. CRAWLEY: Case CESD20110005345, Grand C s
Communities, Inc.
Violation of Collier County Land Development :t• 04-41, as
amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Section 112 1 n. 6(B)(1)(e).
Description of violation: Remodel, inclu• • • re oval of a
firewall between commercial units 604 and 60 r or to issuance of a
Collier County building permit.
Location/address where violation - 0 Mannix Drive,
Unit 605, Naples, Florida, 34114. r :
1.
' t•
-.• . 6885100984.
Name and address of owner/p®- % in charge of violation
location: Grand Cypress Com -s, Inc., 3887 Mannix Drive, Suite
612, Naples, Florida, 341 ,A
Date violation first i rued: May 11th, 2011.
Date owner/person in arge given Notice of Violation:
December 2nd, 2 .
Day on/b � 1violation to be corrected: December 31st, 2011.
Date of pection: June 1st, 2012.
Resul ' .-inspection: Violation remains.
C_ - I 1 'AN KAUFMAN: Okay, Danny, you're on
4: IGATOR CONDOMINA: Hello. For the record,
I ' - to' or Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement.
would now like to present case evidence in the following
exhibits: Two photographs taken by me on November 30th, 2011, and
one floor plan from permit 2005082207.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the
Page 51
August 23, 2012
photographs?
MR. RICHARD: Yes.
INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Yes.
MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photographs.
MR. LAVINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a sec 1
those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye. 0
MR. DOINO: Aye. Aecite
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cti- unanimously.
INVESTIGATOR CONDO± 0 I A: For the case details, the
original complaint came f •
0* - ire department inspector. I observed
unit 604 and 605 altered .1 combined through the removal of a fire
barrier wall prior to issuanc R`'of permit. Business owner applied for
permits and went ou several issues trying to get that permit
accepted. He r. i .lso financial issues regarding that permit.
I have s -n with Larry Goad, who also -- he's the registered
agent and �e manager of these commercial units through phone
calls a' e .il`�to inform him of the issues of this unit -- of these units.
• �=w permits have been issued to replace the missing section
o r he . is for these two units. No certificate of completion.
Vio ion remains.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you identify yourself
and your relationship to the business?
MR. RICHARD: I'm -- I own Cafe Portafino and Portafino Bay
Page 52
August 23, 2012
and Company who leased the building off of Larry. So essentially I
took the wall down, he didn't. But I'm encompassed by fire walls all
the way around, and it wasn't a structural wall so I figured it was okay.
You know, my bad now that I know.
So it is going up this Friday, it's going back up, because we
received our permit. We're just putting it back to the way it
actually taking Unit 604 back and he's going to lease it out . - se I
don't need that much space anymore because we've got an � �����-r retail
location. And that's about -- we're just going to get ev 'ng back to
the way it was And the permit's been issued for th .t starts this
Friday.
y
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long do th nk it will take to
get it done?
MR. RICHARD: Probably take th .1-, four months, get
everything done, back in order.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: guess our first order of
business is to find if a violation or not. Any motion from the
board?
MR. LAVINSKI: I ake a motion a violation exists.
MR. MARINO: I'll sec nd it.
CHAIRMA FMAN: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor?.. L
MR. ? "O N: Aye.
MR. * I 110 : Aye.
• I
� ��
C N KAUFMAN: Aye.
FEBVRE: Aye.
R MIESZCAK: Aye.
°e... . MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
Page 53
August 23, 2012
Okay, now, Danny, you have a suggestion?
INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: I sure do.
That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay
all operational costs in the amount of$82.86 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations b ,
one Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or
demolition permit, inspections and certificate of
completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearin• ^ ine of
blank per day will be imposed until the violation is ab - •
Two The respondent must notify the code en � ent
investigator when the violation has been abate- ' *er to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement. If the re to.. d-nt fails to abate
the violation, the county may abate the vie x io using any method to
bring the violation into compliance and . . e the assistance of the
Collier County Sheriffs Office to 4• e provisions of this order,
and all costs of abatement shall be . �� sed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMA '_r44y. Anybody like to take a stab at
this? �
MR. LAVINSKIA , do it
I make a motion that t =, respondent pay the $82.86 within 30
days, and that he tgiven 120 days to correct the violation or a fine of
$200 per day b ed.
CHAI ' 0 UFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have
a second? lop
I' econ. it
.� W , all those in favor?
v° R. HUDSON: Aye.
4a R. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
Page 54
August 23, 2012
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Thank you.
414,-
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so you have 120 days. t vty
can get it done in 90 you're out of the game.
MR. RICHARD: Thank you, sir. 0
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you can't, come b. E d see us
and we'll do whatever we need to do.
MR. RICHARD: It will get done. Thank U,.. u guys take
care.
MS. CRAWLEY: Number 10, Case T 0120004188, Doreen
Bigica.
(Investigator Condomina was • orn.)
MS. CRAWLEY: Case CES l 0004188, Doreen Bigica.
Violation of Collier County La• a - elopment Code, 04-41, as
amended, Section 10.02.0 0 :4`' t a), and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e).
Description of viol. : 10 Collier County building permits for
garage door converted to do i .le glass doors.
Location/ad a -ss here violation exists: 2391 19th Street
Southwest, Nap -s, orida, 34117. Folio No. 45965880003.
Name a a dress of owner/person in charge of violation
location: "lip' : igica, 2391 19th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida,
34117 ,H
011: olation first observed: March 21st, 2012.
Tht- owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March
29t 012.
v
Day on/by which violation to be corrected: April 28th, 2012.
Date of reinspection: May 22nd, 2012.
Results of reinspection: Violation remains.
Page 55
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Danny.
INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Hello. For the record,
Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement.
I would now like to present case evidence in the following
exhibits: One photograph taken by me on March 21st, 2012, and o
floor plan from permit 91-9103, showing garage door.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion --
MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, have a
second?
MR. MARINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. t ose in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
•
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: AxNyr
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye a
CHAIRMAN KA E t;A 7 Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMA A FMAN: Carries unanimously.
INVESTI `A ��.4 ' CONDOMINA: Case details. We received an
anonymouslaint regarding several permit concerns on this
property. A ing research I found the garage door was altered to
doubl-
as- doors without permits. Property is vacant at this time I
fou a 7. ive foreclosure information. As of today, no permits have
. -n . t 'fined for this alteration. Violation remains.
A IRMAN KAUFMAN: You need a real little car to get
through that door, don't you? Okay.
MR. LAVINSKI: Danny, have you been inside that unit?
INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: I have not. There's a fence, I
Page 56
August 23, 2012
can't --
MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. I was just wondering if-- it's obvious it's
converted to a living space, so it probably has air conditioning and on
and on.
INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: There may I just -- ther
fence, so I was unable to access.
MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. „,„4
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation xist.
MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motto � second.
All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. ‘0
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KALIF'4 AO pposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUF iA N: Carries unanimously.
Do you have suggestion?
INVESTL_ A s ' CONDOMINA: I sure do. That the Code
Enforcement i :rd orders the respondent to pay all operational costs
in the amo ir 4 '',81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within
30 day,..I n. abate all violations by, one Obtaining all required Collier
Cou e .. ding permits or demolition permit, inspections and
c,-..-';� . = of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing
4
or a 3 e of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated.
Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate
Page 57
August 23, 2012
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 provision of this order,
and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owne .
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a quick question. Is thiselk
property on the market that you know of?
INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: I saw -- there is a : 7;_ sign,
and I did inform the realtor of the violations, and they s. ' Ilk y're -- I
mean, they didn't tell me anymore information. I talk • hem at
least twice about this
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It would be i' .-re ' n g to see if it's
for sale how many bedrooms or what they say : o t at particular
room. And anybody who would buy that • o doing an inspection
would be foolish.
0
I'm sorry, Gerald?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there an 160 , that part of our motion -- or
our order, I should say, that we 'o ri require access to the structure to
see if in fact that was con - a "a room?
MS. RAWSON: I • i
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have any -- Diane, do you have
access to MLS through one means or another?
MS. FLAGG: They have access, but in addition they can get an
entry consent form if they can get the property owner to agree. d/or
there's also an option to go to the court to get access. But they'll t
with looking at the listing. b Ow
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to to ; . e
motion?
MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess since I had the quests s . so many
questions, the respondent is to pay $81.43 within 3. and abate all
violations by -- let's say -- it's vacant you said, IT".
ry{
INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Yes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Within 60 days or in of$250 per day.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, e a motion. Do we have
a second?
MR. MARINO: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMA we have a second.
All those in favor? C.).
MR. HUDSON: A
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMA FMAN: Aye.
MR. LEF � '' : Aye.
MR. M D. - C A : Aye.
MR. CFA . ° O: Aye.
C w I Ilt • N KAUFMAN: Opposed?
IhM sponse.)
Nek
A IRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you
p VESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Thank you
MS. CRAWLEY: Number 11, Case CESD20120006530, Park
East Development, LTD.
(Investigator Jones was duly sworn.)
Page 59
August 23, 2012
MS. CRAWLEY: Case CESD20120006530, Park East
Development, LTD.
Violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code
04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.13(F).
Description of violation: Failure to submit annual PUD 04,4\
monitoring reports.
Location/address where violation exists: 5100 27th Pl
Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio No 36453120/1 %ge
Name and address of owner/person in charge of Aw. • ion
location: Park East Development, LTD, 5258 Gold- e Parkway,
Naples, Florida, 34116, care of James G. O'G. IV: olden Gate
Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34116.
Date violation first observed: April 31 , 2012.
Date owner/person in charge give y - of Violation: May
18th, 2012.
Date on/by which violation to o rrected: June 18th, 2012.
Date of reinspection: June is 6 I, 012.
Results of reinspects• i • tion remains.
INVESTIGATOR t".E Good morning.
CHAIRMAN KAUF vA N: Good morning, David.
INVESTIG A •RJONES: Pretty simple here. If you'd like, I
could just read $ recommendations from this point.
CHAI 'II A UFMAN: Fine with me. We have to find them
in violatio t o --
E`' I ATOR JONES: k
O ay, yes.
747- ° AN KAUFMAN: Just give quick summa
y ��4 a ve us a g q summary.
41Ik STIGATOR JONES: I will Actually, I do have some
ad s'Ire.'Ire nal info.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any exhibits?
INVESTIGATOR JONES: I don't. I just have some email
correspondence. It's another department that kind of handles this. And
Page 60
August 23, 2012
when they don't submit these PUD monitoring reports, it's pushed over
to code enforcement to go to that level.
There was a request sent to the respondent 1/5 of 2012, a second
request was sent on 3/15 of 2012. Nothing was heard from them. o
that's where we're at today.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. A 4.*,‘Z*
MR. LEFEBVRE: What kind of PUD is this
INVESTIGATOR JONES: This is a -- let's take a le , t -re. It's
called Founders Plaza PUD. And according to this e :
correspondence, all parcels are complete with PUD i Morin
P p g
submittals except for one parcel. They didn't s e monitoring
report for one parcel, so they're in violation.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a moti elation does exist.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. DOINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUF 4 A0 d we have a second.
All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOIN• y
CHAP 11 t, • UFMAN: Aye.
MR. L - i V D : Aye.
MR. lio,' CCAK: Aye.
II 46 O. Aye.
y
RMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
response.)
A RMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously.
Mr. Lavinski is our general expert on PUD's, but let Dave go first
to give us his recommendation.
INVESTIGATOR JONES: Sure. Recommendation is that the
Page 61
August 23, 2012
Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational
costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case
within 30 days and abate all violations by, one: Respondent must
submit two complete copies of the planned unit development a al
monitoring report form, one of three traffic county options, and o
executed affidavit within blank days of this hearing or pay a f
blank dollars a day until abated.
Two The respondent must notify the code enforce %
investigator when the violation has been abated in or I;,,Nconduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respo ails to abate
the violation, the county may abate the violati cis u _ a y method to
bring the violation into compliance and may us t assistance of the
Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce p I visions of this order,
and all costs of abatement shall be asse - . 1 0 he property owner.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I we have any suggestions,
Mr. Lavinski?
MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. I ' motion that the respondent pay
the $80.86 within 30 days A ere this is a PUD update, it's not
that big a deal. So I'd li e say that they have 30 days to get that
submitted or a fine of$100 •er day.
MR. MIESZ A . Second the motion.
CHAI ' :#1 A UFMAN: We have a motion and a second.
All thos- • avor?
MR Aye.
D I INO: Aye.
5 • N KAUFMAN: Aye.
111L R LEFEBVRE: Aye.
' � R. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 62
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
Thanks, Dave?
INVESTIGATOR JONES: Thank you.
MR. MARINO: Mr. Kaufman?
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes.
(-,4\
MR. MARINO: I see there's nobody else here except Mr
Holzkamper. Can we bring him up?
p
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Z 0
MR. LEFEBVRE: He's right after the next case.
MR. MARINO: Is he?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MS. CRAWLEY: We are now on to num r iv , old business,
A, motion for imposition of fines.
Number one, Case 2007050898, gents, Inc.
(Supervisor Perez was duly s o
SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For t lord, Code Enforcement
Supervisor Cristina Perez.
CHAIRMAN KAUF'4 At ood morning, Cristina.
SUPERVISOR PE NV. : is is in reference to Case No
CEB2009050898. Violatio A Collier County Land Development
Code 04-41, as a ' - de , Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a),
10.02.06(B)(1 , : q • 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i).
Locatio . 3 Lake Trafford Road, Immokalee, Florida, 34142.
Folio No. i "j4 A ‘600000.
D- , ri otion: A 50-foot by 12-foot room addition without first
obta'n .- for Collier County permits.
s orders: On September 24, 2009, the Code Enforcement
Bo:" e"issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The
respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and
ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board
OR 4499, Page 2139 for more information.
Page 63
August 23, 2012
The last extension of time was be granted on March 22nd, 2012.
See the attached order of the board OR 4784, page 1797 for more
information.
The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement oard
orders as of June 25th, 2012.
The fines and costs to date are described as the followin • =-r
item number two, fines at the rate of$200 er day for the
p Y p
between June 21st, 2012 to June 25th, 2012, five days, f total of
$1,000. .z
Order item number one, operational costs of '. have been
paid.
Total amount to date, $1,000.
The county recommends full abatem of mes, as the violation
is abated and operational costs paid.
MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to
MR. LAVINSKI: Second
CHAIRMAN KALIF • � = ave e a motion and a second. All
those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: A
MR. DOING: Aye. ,
CHAIRMA FMAN: Aye.
MR. LEF ' : Aye.
MR. M :am C • : Aye.
MR � ,• ; � � O: Aye.
C #• I `• N KAUFMAN: Opposed?
mod=$
ponse.)
A IRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
PERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks Cristina.
MS. CRAWLEY: Number two, Case CESD20110006971, Henry
and Jan E. Holzkamper.
Page 64
August 23, 2012
MR. HOLZKAMPER: We're getting to be old friends.
(Mr. Holzkamper and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All right.
SUPERVISOR SNOW: Kitchell Snow, Collier County Cod
Enforcement.
This concerns violation of Collier County Land Develop
Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06 B 1 a and
10.02.06(B)(1)(e). v. 0
The location is 3230 Thommason Drive, Naples . • da, 34112.
Folio No is 526004-4005. And the description of t tlation is
drywall has been removed and replaced in the ld ngs bottom
east unit. And the stairs in the front of the east Sri e�i g have been
repaired to include but not limited to Han,A ,ils, steps, and supports
without first obtaining all required Coll' i iir ty building permits.
On August 25th, 2011, the C C. ' rcement Board issued a
finding of fact, a conclusion of law . order. The respondent was
found in violation of the refere - ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the atta Ced er of the Board OR 4732, Page 491
for more information.
An extension of time s granted on February 23rd, 2012. See
the attached Orde f the Board, OR 4772, and Page 1327 for more
information.
The pro. ' is in compliance with the Code Enforcement
Board's ori(,-ifr a of August 7th, 2012. The fines and cost to date are
descri a ,i a' the following: Order item number one and two, fines at
the r. ,1 �r ; 00 per day for the period between May 24th, 2012 and
A _ R h, 2012, 76 days, for a total of$15,200.
` 0 rder Item number five, operational cost of$81.15 have been
paid.
Total amount to date is $15,200.
The county recommends full abatement of all fines, as the
Page 65
August 23, 2012
violation is abated and operational costs paid.
MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we abate all fines.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second to abate
all fines. This might be the last time we see you in a long time \
All those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye. ",„„4,4
MR. DOING: Aye. At /49113-
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. mCito
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 1 .,*-"Q'
SUPERVISOR SNOW: We trl a he board.
MR. HOLZKAMPER: I' "`spy Henry, thank you
MR. MIESZCAK: A a he staircase.
MS. CRAWLEY: if ber three, Case CESD20110015948,
Michael Zager and Paula J. a oads.
INVESTIG • •R CHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe
Mucha, Collie o b 'ty Code Enforcement.
This is s °'� g with violation of Collier County --
THE REPORTER: Joe, let me swear you in, please.
E I ATOR MUCHA: Oh, sorry.
igator Joe Mucha was duly sworn.)
STIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier
Co u -= y Code Enforcement.
This is dealing with violations of Collier County Land
Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and
Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e).
Page 66
August 23, 2012
Violation location: 557 Cypress Way East, Naples, 34110. Folio
No. 65322840006.
Violation description is remodeling alterations to the inside and
outside of house without first obtaining the proper Collier Coun
permits and inspections.
Past orders: On April 26th, 2012, the Code Enforcement n d
issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The r- .° °I dent
was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ' rd to
correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Bo .,-. •, rook 4795,
Page 314 for more information. Ili
The property is not in compliance with t Co forcement
Board orders as of today, August 23rd, 2012.
The fines and costs to date are descri e • a the following: Order
item number one and two, fines at a rat ' `>4 0 per day for the period
between June 26th, 2012 and Aug , 2112, 59 days, for the total
of 8,850. And fines continue to acs
Order Item number five, o- -` 1 onal costs of$81.15 have not
been paid.
Total amount to da -41P1: $ 31.15.
MR. MIESZCAK: Mo on to impose the fines.
MR. LAV I: gtecond.
CHAI ' all t,. A UFMAN: I have a motion and a second.
All thos +{ •-° avor?
MR. ,1,. DO N: Aye.
• 0: Aye.
. 5 A N KAUFMAN: Aye.
V R. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
v R. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 67
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries. The fines are imposed.
MS. CRAWLEY: Number five, Case CESD20110014201253,
Tommy Pickren.
(Investigator Joe Mucha was duly sworn.)
INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Col
County Code Enforcement.
This is dealing with violation of Collier County Land 4(1/
Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.0•x: ` )(a).
The violation location is 1072 north Alhambra C' , Naples,
34103. The Folio No is 63401440002. I
Violation description is an unpermitted s ilities in the
rear yard.
Past orders: On March 22nd, 2012, t ii. e Enforcement Board
issued a findings of fact, conclusion of order. The respondent
was found in violation '
o anon of the refer; - � � m
dances and ordered to
correct the violation. See the attac Order of the Board, Book 4784,
Page 1837 for more information
The property is in coro.• • with the Code Enforcement Board
orders as of July 26th, 2i e fines and costs to date are described
as the following: Order ite number one and two fines at a rate of
$200 per day for - - pe iod between April 22nd, 2012 and July 26th,
2012, or 96 da ems, ol�, he total of$19,200.
Order n r .er Item five, operational costs of$81.43 have been
paid. Total, rys. t to date is $19,200. And the county is
recom n• g abatement of$19,200 in daily fines due to the case
bei w pliance and the operational costs having been paid.
R. LEFEBVRE: I have a question regarding this property.
ESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir.
MR. LEFEBVRE: This property went to foreclosure, bank took it
bank in April, I think, correct?
INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes.
Page 68
August 23, 2012
MR. LEFEBVRE: How come it's not reflected on here, the
bank's name?
INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I don't -- I think I think Tommy
Pickren is still technically the owner.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I mean, I know on public records •t
showing as a bank foreclosure in April. I know this case was
withdrawn. The imposition of fines I think was withdrawnAtitanth or
two ago, or the case was withdrawn. It probably doesn't r much,
because there's not going to be any fines on the prope Nn just --
INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I'm not sure. "(1.44,5
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good.
I make a motion that we abate the fines.
MR. MARINO: Second.
flb
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We ha . o' .tion and a second. All
those in favor?
M
b4446'N'
R. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUF'4 . ye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: A
MR. MIESZCAK: Ay=
MR. MA ' : A e.
CHAI • • UFMAN: Opposed?
(No res. ‘ • tee.)
CHA A 1 KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
E I ATOR MUCHA: Thank you
`* • ��-. � • WLE
Y. Number six, Case CELU20110009421, Terry
H: a e -z and Brian K. Fults.
investigator Box was duly sworn.)
INVESTIGATOR BOX: For the record, my name is Investigator
Heinz Box, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is regarding violations of the Collier County Land
Page 69
August 23, 2012
Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03.
Location of violation is 2700 47th Terrace Southwest, Naples,
Florida, 34116. Folio number 35988400001.
Description of violation is a pool built on the property with o
primary structure. And a pool water green with algae. ,„,,,,N,
Past orders: On October 27th, 2011, the Code Enforceme#00
Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and orde
respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordi .iltk s and
ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Ord ° e Board,
OR 4734, Page 2795 for more information.
The property is not in compliance with t Co E forcement
Board orders as of August 23rd, 20112. The fin no costs to date are
described as following: Order item numbe ,ne and two, fines at the
rate of$150 a day for the period betwe a g:Pf fmber 12th, 2011 and
August 23rd, 2012, 256 days, for . ,o N.'$ 8,400. And fines
continue to accrue.
Order item number four, a- m• ent costs in the amount of 6,530
have not been paid. a.
Order Item number , operational costs of$80.86 have not
been paid. The total amount s $45,010.86.
MR. LEFEB , ' 4 have a couple questions.
Why has ' a t so long for it to come back in front of us? And
the fines con to accrue; is that correct?
IN TOR BOX: Yes, uh-huh.
L' F BVRE: But it says abatement costs of 6,530. I mean,
that' _`1- .dictory.
STIGATOR BOX: Okay. On reviewing this case -- I got
this just recently, okay. And on reviewing it, it seemed like there
were two parts to this case. The first one was the fact that the pool was
not permitted, and the second part of it was because the county had to
go and put some type of netting material over the top of the pool. I
Page 70
August 23, 2012
believe that $6,500 is what the cost was to have that pool secured.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Secured similar to what a bank would do --
INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: -- when they foreclose on the property --
INVESTIGATOR BOX: That's correct.
MR. LEFEBVRE: -- with a pool?
Okay. But the pool is still there?
INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes, the pool is still there 's
unpermitted. ,..
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion -- well, 411111, `make a
motion, is it in fact in foreclosure right now? le
INVESTIGATOR BOX: To the best of m o ledge, no, it's
not in foreclosure. It's still owned. a
MR. LEFEBVRE: And there's no f t structure, no house --
INVESTIGATOR BOX: No, e `o ome there at all
MR. LEFEBVRE: Was there "a house there?
INVESTIGATOR BOX: i - y, I don't know. I just got the
case and I didn't look that it 0 it
MR. LEFEBVRE: NIIIIte ro elem.
I make a motion to im e'I se a fine.
MR. DOIN ec nd.
CHAI ' . UFMAN: We have a motion and a second.
All thos erg- favor?
MR. 'LID ON: Aye.
0 O: Aye.
- SA A N KAUFMAN: Aye.
'; LEFEBVRE: Aye.
R. MIESZCAK: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 71
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously.
INVESTIGATOR BOX: Thank you.
MS. CRAWLEY: Number eight, Case CESD20110013644,
Giselle and Alejandro Melendi.
(Supervisor Jeff Letourneau was duly sworn.)
SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Just in reference to tha l b
case, there was a house there at one point that got destroye
Wilma. They demolished it
For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County
Enforcement.
Original violation is of the Collier Coun a velopment
Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)( , nd
10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i).
The violation location is at 3680 F' h enue Southeast,
Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 1 0 07.
Violation description is attac � ; "rage enclosed and turned into
living space, detached garage ar�a` tbf• mming pool with enclosure built
without Collier County b =rmits.
On April 26th, 201 , e ode Enforcement Board issued a
finding of fact and conclusi of law and order. The respondent was
found in violatio th e referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. S- t -q .ttached Order of the Board OR 4795, Page 333,
for more info 4 ion.
The p , • is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement
Board i� ••e•s of Jul -- excuse me, August 2 r
July g 3 d, 2012.
4 es and costs to date are described as the following: Order
it $er one and two, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the
per between June 26th, 2012 and August 23rd, 2012, totaling 59
days, for the total amount of$11,800. Fines continue to accrue.
Order Item number five, operational costs of$80.57 have not
been paid. Total amount to date, $11,880.57.
Page 72
August 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motion from the board?
MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose a fine.
MR. LAVINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second.
All those in favor'?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. At LI
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. 4C44 ,
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carrie' -4,1) ously.
MS. CRAWLEY: Number 11 NIA 'M20100019476, Erick
Dorestil and Elvita Pierre.
(Supervisor Jeff Letourne.a duly sworn.)
SUPERVISOR LET•< tAU: Original violation, 2010
Florida Building Code, "titer 4, Section 424.2317, and Ordinance
04-41, as amended, the Col er County Land Development Code,
Section 10.02.06 ' (1) a), and the Collier County codes of laws and
ordinances, C bte , Article VI, Section 22-231, Subsection 15.
The viol. • • location: 3661 12th Avenue Northeast, Naples,
Florida, 34 I olio No 40527040008.
V' at
.n description: No protective barrier securing the
swi _ :ool. Swimming pool permit expired without obtaining a
c,., i i . = of completion.
'ast order: On June 28th, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board
issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent
was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to
correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4816,
Page 73
August 23, 2012
Page 1512 for more information.
The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement
Board orders as of August 23rd, 2012. The fines and costs to date are
described as the following: Order item number one and two, fine at
the rate of$250 per day for the period between July 6th, 2012 an
August 23rd, 2012, totaling 49 days, for the total of$12,2504
h#,, \,,
continue to accrue.
Order Item number five, operational costs of$81.7k1Q not
been paid. Total amount to date, $12,331.72.
MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine.
MR. MARINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a moti a d a second. All
those in favor?
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
1'6'1OP
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN:
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. S1 ,,,\
MR. MIESZCAK: A ' .
MR. MARINO: A " `
CHAIRMAN KAUF v: N: Opposed?
(No respons .
CHAI ' Ailk A UFMAN: Carries unanimously.
MR. LE : V • : I have a question. When would the county go
in -- Ailk t
6.
IP
• no protective barrier, I mean, it's been two months
now s'
- N be've ruled.
1 ° VISOR LETOURNEAU: Actually, right now the
• + • .r in lis pendens with Indy Mac, and we're negotiating with
thek . trying to get them to take care of it. If they don't, we would
have to go in. Hopefully the bank will take care of it though.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Colleen, where does that leave
Page 74
August 23, 2012
us?
MS. CRAWLEY: We are under reports.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any reports?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, Mr. Chair, we do.
As of August 15th, the banks have spent more than $2.8 mi i
to abate 2,339 violations in Collier County.
And just as a reminder, the banks can only abate if the is
unoccupied. So for those homes that have occupancy, th o come
before you and then the county can abate by virtue of '"bfvorder. So
that's -- either the banks abate or we abate, depend' � �4`on the
occupancy of the home.
In regard to how much the banks have spew the first 10
months of this fiscal year they've spent $4 00• and abated 281 code
cases.
For the week ending August t
I\
re were 168 code cases
opened, just in that one week. And .. =p cases are opened based upon
complaints by community me .nd/or if there's a vacant home the
sheriffs office and the co• - ee9r ement officers do sweeps through
neighborhoods, and thei 43/0 us is on addressing vacant homes or
foreclosed homes.
As of again - 10 months, there's been 7,265 code cases opened.
There's been 2A • h • operty inspections. There's been 3,901 cases
closed with ` , tary compliance, meaning those are cases that they
worked wit I e .roperty owner and the property owner made a
decis.i. m o .. ahead and abate the violation before it had to come to a
hear'n�
-
- . - e have been 100 --just this year, the 10 months of this year
the been 122 meet and greet events. That's where the investigators
join up with the other members of the community task force members,
go out, talk to community members, talk to them about their
neighborhood, followed by 19 cleanup events. And that's where the
Page 75
August 23, 2012
investigators through their community task force teams go out in
neighborhoods and instead of citing them for violations provide
dumpsters and help them get rid of the litter and the debris and the
items in their neighborhood. So they've had 19 of those events.
They've also done 20 vacant home sweeps in the first 10 months o
this year
The amount of fines waived by both yourselves, the s•
magistrate and the BCC just in the first 10 months of thiF th" is more
than $1.4 million in fines that have been waived.
As I talked to you at the last meeting, bankru• _ e're seeing
4 'more and more bankru p tcies occur. And we'v: -c- d .
l new
bankruptcy notifications, and the number of ca) s f cted by
bankruptcy right now are averaging 50. T u ber of documents
we've received in the first -- bankruptc ents we've received in
the first 10 months of this year is 5 �� :� ptcy documents.
The program that was initiate ro-ral years ago with the lien
search program where owners t, . e thinking about buying a
property, they contact our e a let them know whether there's an
open code case, whethe e s an existing order or lien on the
property, there's been 6,469 ien searches requested in the first 10
months of this ye., . Ane of those, more than 6,310 identified that
there was an is he property. So that gave the potential
purchaser ad v z • - warning that there was an issue on the property so
that they d a,41' y the property not knowing that there was an issue
on the opt '.
' th that, I don't know if you have any questions.
IRMAN KAUFMAN: If you could, could Y ou email me the
reps—. I want to present that to one of the other committees I'm
NABOR. on in
MS. FLAGG: I'd be happy to.
MR. MARINO: I'd like to make a comment, Diane, on your little
Page 76
August 23, 2012
group of people. I'll call them a little group of people. They are doing
a great job for -- keeping an eye on the fire industry.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
MR. MARINO: I've been getting my reports and they're doi g a
good job with that also
MS. FLAGG: Thank you
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I hope we're all safe : c, we all
can get that storm to go a little bit further out in the Gulf , l exico.
MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion to adjourn s an go
home and put up our shutters.
011
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in fa o
MR. HUDSON: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: .e,11,4:11444birN.'"
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CS,7*
MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. ,i4CAN'
MR. MARINO: Aye: q iiUY
CHAIRMAN KA " A 17. Okay, we're adjourned.
o *****
N,,,
+,
"Th
Page 77
August 23, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :31 a.m.
C ENFORCEMENT BOARD
,i 0
R G 1 ERT viP U ' , Chairman
I
These minutes p approved by the Board on ,�r -e ' ,Dol ,
as resented V or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 78