Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/27/2012 R September 27, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, September 27, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Kenneth Kelly Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak Lionel L'Esperance (Arrived Late) Tony Marino Ron Doino (Absent) Chris Hudson (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney to the board Page 1 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal 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. Roll call, please. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Lionel L'Esperance is absent, and Mr. Ron Doino, Jr., is also absent today. Page 2 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, Chris, you will be a voting member today to fill the -- Lionel's seat. Okay. Do we have any changes, maybe, in the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under No. 4, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, motion for continuance, we have two additions. Number 2 will be No. 2 from hearings, Steve and Alice Poseley, Case CESD20120001351. Number 3 will be No. 20 from hearings, Thu-Nhut Nguyen, Case CEPM20120001592. Under motion for extension of time, we have three additions. Number 4 will be No. 1 from imposition of fines, Maderline and Edileydis Gonzalez, Case CESD20110000679. Number 5 will be No. 2 from imposition of fines, Bruce Blocker, Case CESD20100005205. Number 6 will be No. 6 from imposition of fines, Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Case CELU20100004523. Under stipulations, we have five stipulations. The first will be No. 3 from hearings, Teymur Akhundov, Case CESD20110008224. The second will be No. 8 from hearings, Jenna Holbrook, Case CESD20120002199. Number 3 will be No. 17 from hearings, Peter Salazar Lopez and Monica O. Coariti DeSalazar, Case CESD20120007390. (Mr. Lionel L'Esperance entered the hearing room.) MS. BAKER: Number 4 will be No. 18 from hearings, Peter Salazar Lopez and Monica O. Coariti DeSalazar, Case CESD20120007391. Number 5 will be No. 19 from hearings, Peter Salazar Lopez and Monica O. Coariti DeSalazar, Case CESD20120007393. Under Letter C, hearings, No. 5, Case CEOCC20120002338, Page 3 September 27, 2012 Robert E. and Colleen Rossomando, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CESD20110010944, Dan R. and Susie L. Rickard, has been withdrawn. Number 12, Case CESD20120003835, Noham Kilinsky, has been withdrawn. Number 16, Case CESD20120000028, Esteban Santiago Ramirez and Nassario Eligio Santiago, has been withdrawn. Under No. 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 3, Case CEPM20120003266, Integrity First CR Services, has been withdrawn. And No. 5, Case CESD20100016684, Joseph R. and Betty J. Faircloth, has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Before we accept a motion to accept the changes to the agenda, let me just -- since Lionel has just arrived, he will be the regular voting member, and Chris will be the alternate. Okay. I'll accept a motion to accept the changes. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second by Mr. Lefebvre. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 4 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Approval of minutes. Do we have any changes on the minutes from any of the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve it. Do we -- MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second by Tony. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: (Abstaining.) MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. KELLY: One abstention. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One abstention. Yeah, Mr. Kelly was not at the last meeting. Okay. Which brings us to motions. MS. BAKER: The first motion for continuance will be Paul and Cathleen Burcky, Case CESD20110011764. You'll find their request under No. 1 from hearings. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. ASARO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we even begin, I have one question. Have the fees been paid on this one? MS. BAKER: They haven't been to a hearing yet. Page 5 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. Just asking for the continuance. You've been in touch with the respondent; can you give us a quickie background on the case? MR. ASARO: Yes. As a matter of fact, I spoke to Mr. Burcky. I was hoping he was going to be here today. Unfortunately, he's been having some financial difficulties. He's recently lost his job, and he's trying -- presently trying to save his house with his lender. So, basically, everything's been on hold for now. One of the permits isn't ready for issuance status for the pole barn, but everything's just been on hold. Yeah, he -- that's basically what he related to me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I guess I don't understand why he's not here, and we're just talking about a permit; is that correct? MR. ASARO: It's actually -- it's actually a permit for the pole barn and a permit to demo the two-story structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're talking, to begin with, $400. That's what it says on the letter. MR. ASARO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To -- MR. KELLY: Can I make a suggestion to the board? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. KELLY: If we were to deny the request for continuance, go to the regular hearing, and then struck the -- construct the resolution to give him the time that he's asking for, perhaps that would be a way to save an agenda spot in the future, give the respondent what they are asking for, at the same time, make it more official. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. And this has been going on since August of last year. So I would agree with Mr. Kelly and have this go to a hearing and structure a -- exactly the way Mr. Kelly said. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So first things first; we need to deny Page 6 September 27, 2012 the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- request. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny the request. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. So we will hear that when it comes up today. MR. ASARO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next case is? MS. BAKER: Next case is No. 2, which was No. 2 from hearings, Steve and Alice Poseley, Case CESD20120001351. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you give us a little background on this? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I've been in touch with the property owners. They are out-of-state owners, and they're not coming back till October. They have two inspections left on their permit. It's an unoccupied structure. They Page 7 September 27, 2012 need their final electrical and final building, and it will be a wrap. So they just basically needed more time because they're out of state. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So they'll be back in October? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir, yes, sir. And, actually, we had continued this case last month, and I didn't mean for it to come on this agenda. I wanted to push it to the November agenda, if needed. But I feel pretty confident that they're going to take care of this issue, and the case will be closed. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Kelly, would you like to give us your MR. KELLY: Ditto from the last case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what I thought. Okay. So what we're basically asking for is to deny the continuance request, and when we hear the case, we will be able to act accordingly, okay? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to deny. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks. Page 8 September 27, 2012 MS. BAKER: The next will be No. 3, which was No. 20 from hearings, Thu-Nhut Nguyen, Case CEPM20120001592. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Boy, you're fast. He got there before I got my tab. Okay. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BALDWIN: I spoke with the owners on Monday of this week. They are -- as Joe stated in the previous case, they are out of town as well, out of state. And they did board up the property. And the case was -- they just didn't get a boarding certificate before. But some vagrants or scoundrels in the neighborhood broke into the property again, and it is unsecured. They have a flight booked. They're coming down October 13th, and they're going to replace all of the windows in the structure. They're not going to get a boarding certificate. They're going to get permits and replace everything. They bought the home as a retirement home and, unfortunately, some people in the neighborhood keep breaking into it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sounds similar? MR. KELLY: I would say it sounds very similar. Just keep in mind that when we do get to the hearings, just giving the respondents ample time to take care of these issues. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I need a motion to deny the -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. And do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second by Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 9 September 27, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: The next, moving to motion for extension of time. The first case will be Steven J. Sokol, Case CESD20110001100. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. SOKOL: Good morning. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're asking an extension of time? Why don't you let us know the story. MR. SOKOL: Yes, sir, thank you. We originally purchased this property, and it has been excavated. Some of the soil had been sold. We were given a period of six months to complete. This is a large excavation that had previously taken place by the old owner. We had put in approximately 50 dump truckloads full of soil, 20 tons of soil each, an additional 60 dump truckloads of soil, and we continue to work. One of the problems that we've had has been the rain where it's very difficult to get on the property without sliding, essentially, for the dump trucks. We're having ruts. But we have continued to do so, and we're hoping for the additional 120 days during what will be a drier period of time so that we can complete the refurbishment of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. A question I had. Originally this was not your case; this was somebody else's case? MR. SOKOL: That's correct. Page 10 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they were given 180 days originally? MR. SOKOL: Oh, no. This was my case for the 180 days, but I believe that there was some type of code enforcement before I purchased the property, but I'm not positive of that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is what we try to keep from happening, that somebody purchases a piece of property or a house where there's a violation on it, and then the property is sold, which is the case here. MR. SOKOL: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And -- yes? MR. ANDREW KELLY: May I speak? For the record, Andrew Kelly, code enforcement. On this particular case, there was a notice of violation given on the property on the original owner, and it went through two other ownerships prior to Mr. Sokol purchasing the property, but Mr. Sokol did understand when he purchased this property that there was already a violation on it. MR. SOKOL: Oh, yes, yes. I did understand that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Okay. And you think that you can have this all done by when? MR. SOKOL: Yeah. We're asking for an extension of 120 days, sir. We're now working on a more rapid cycle of getting material -- clean fill material put in there, and we have the entire back portion of the property completed. And we've been trying to update code enforcement as possible. Originally an engineer -- we'd gone to an engineer, and he suggested actually to make a lake there, which was a period of time, and get a permit, after-the-fact permit, for a small lake to be excavated, and using that dirt. Unfortunately, it was -- we did test holes in that area. There was some bedrock, so we don't have a choice but to actually do the fill. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any comments from the board? Yes. Page 11 September 27, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that we grant the individual's request for 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to extend the case 120 days. Do we have -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SOKOL: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have 120 days. I hope we don't see you. MR. SOKOL: I hope not, too. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next will be No. 2, Urbano Hernandez and Manuel Hernandez, Case CESD20110001255. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a little story to go with this one? MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Urbano has finished his permits. He finalized it yesterday. So he needs an extension just so that he won't get fined for the few Page 12 September 27, 2012 days that -- 30-something days that he went over. But the permit is finaled, and he has abated the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would it be appropriate for the county to withdraw this then? MS. BAKER: There -- he's already past his compliance date. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to grant the extension of time. Thirty days. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thirty-three days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thirty-three days. MS. BAKER: Until today. He's in compliance, right? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MS. BAKER: So we could grant the extension until today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: But it doesn't have to be retroactive, or does it automatically be retroactive? MS. BAKER: If you grant the extension until today's date, we'll be good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about if we grant the extension until next month's meeting, and at that time it will probably be withdrawn. MS. BAKER: He's already in compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to grant an extension to today. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 13 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 3, Carlos Ramos, Case CESD20110005108. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. RAMOS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you give us a little background on this case? I did read your note. MR. RAMOS: I'm almost done with my house, and I'd like to get at least 120-day extension, if I could. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If I'm reading the letter that you wrote correctly, you're asking for six months. MR. RAMOS: Well, if I can get the six months, it would be better. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not Let's Make a Deal. MR. RAMOS: I know. Yeah, that would be good for six months, if I could. I've got a few things I need to get done and, financially, I'm kind of hurting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was the $80.86 paid on this? MR. RAMOS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As I read the documentation, there was no CO on the house; is that correct? MR. CONDOMINA: Yes. For the record, Investigator Dan Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. He has all the inspections done for the home. The shed permit has to be completed before they'll allow him to get a certificate of completion on everything, so -- it's a shed and a home. All the Page 14 September 27, 2012 inspections have been done on the house. All that's waiting for is the shed to be completed and, therefore, they'll give him the certificate of completion for both. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the shed been built? MR. CONDOMINA: The shed is -- it's an older shed, so he had to -- that was installed on the property and, therefore, it needs to meet all of today's requirements, and that's what's taking him a little bit, too. MR. RAMOS: Excuse me. It's a Ted's Shed. And it was given to me, and it's been there for about 20 years. But my neighbor got mad, so he called the code enforcement on me, so that's why I'm dealing with you guys. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What needs to be done to the shed? MR. RAMOS: I need to approve (sic) some -- the deck and what kind of materials that's on the deck. And, well, I already applied for the permits, and I'm hoping to get it done soon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Are we talking about a slab that has to be poured so he could put it on it? MR. RAMOS, JR: No. It's just -- excuse me. It's just what needs to be done to the shed is two-and-a-half inches on the railing, and that's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think that's going to take three months? MR. RAMOS: No. I'm hoping it takes less. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RAMOS: But another thing, I need to clear some stuff around there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CONDOMINA: Excuse me. Can I speak for a second? He's had rejections on his plans. He's been pretty much doing it all himself, and there's just been some confusions on some of the Page 15 September 27, 2012 rejections. So he hasn't -- he's still in the application status of the shed, so it's better that he doesn't sit here and do all that stuff until he gets the actual, you know, application approved. So he's been working on that. But he stopped working on the shed because he wanted to get all the stuff done on the house first and, you know, all his financial, you know, means went to the house. So now he's going to work on the shed. He has it activated again. The permit is active, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have no problem in granting the extension? MR. CONDOMINA: No, no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Considering it's been there for 20 years, I make a motion that we grant an extension of time of 180 days from today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, and we have a second by Mr. L'Esperance. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You have Page 16 September 27, 2012 180 days, six months. MR. RAMOS: Thank you. Thank you, sir. MR. RAMOS, JR: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be No. 4, which was No. 1 from imposition, Maderline and Edileydis Gonzalez, Case CESD20110000679. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's under the imposition, Tab 24. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. You look very familiar. MR. ASARO: I do, don't I? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. GONZALEZ: Good morning. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're requesting an extension of time on this? MS. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you give us some background? MS. GONZALEZ: Well, we already finish, you know, the property. We add in the bedroom and bathroom, and we already, you know, finished the permits for that one. The other thing we need are pepper tree, and it's -- the plans. So we need to take off all of this one for the property. And we -- right now we don't have any money for finish that one, so that's why I'm asking for getting more time, to finish that one. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am, I do so swear. For the record, Kitchell Snow, Code Enforcement. I spoke to the respondents this morning. They've done everything they need to do as far as their permit's concerned, but they have a lot of exotics on the property. They have all the inspections completed Page 17 September 27, 2012 other than getting the exotics off, and that's what they're requesting time to do. They've been working very diligently toward compliance. They just need time to remove the exotics. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What's your recommendation for the time period, Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW: I believe whatever they requested. Do you -- how long, sir? MR. GONZALEZ: I try -- MS. GONZALEZ: I request one year, but the best you can do, you know. MR. SNOW: If we give them six months, then we can bring them back at that time if they need more time before you, but it is an extensive project. There are a lot of exotics on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This originally was granted six months; is that correct? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, and they did everything during that six months. They got everything done but the exotics. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: We also granted a motion of extension of time on January 19, 2012. So I don't know when the case was opened, but it has been a substantial amount of time that has been granted at this point. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the individuals' request for 180 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Six months. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and we have a second, Tony. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? Page 18 September 27, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You have six months. MS. GONZALEZ: Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. MR. GONZALEZ: We appreciate it. MS. BAKER: Next will be No. 5, which was No. 2 from imposition, Bruce Blocker, Case CESD20100005205. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Blocker? MR. JOHNS: No, sir. I'm here to represent Mr. Blocker. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And your name is? MR. JOHNS: Randy Johns. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Randy. Can you give us a little background? MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. We're just asking for six months to the -- they're rewriting some of the LDC language now. And we applied to get an SIP plan done for this, and when the comments came back, they came back as an SDP. So we're trying to come up with -- trying to come to an agreement with the planners on the requirements they want for this project. We haven't got a direct answer yet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you talking about the Immokalee Master Plan? MR. JOHNS: Master plan and the LDC that they're writing for Page 19 September 27, 2012 it. We've made requests, and we don't know if we're going to get it. It's really complicated at this time. Any mobile homes and structures that were in place before 1991 when the LDC was amended, we're trying to get that where those people are going to be legal. So we're just kind of waiting to see where the planners are going with this. MR. LEFEBVRE: Does the Immokalee Master Plan have to be in place and voted on and agreed upon by the commissioners before they can work on the LDC? MR. JOHNS: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's going to be in tandem; both of them are going to be heard hand in hand? MR. JOHNS: Immokalee has a master plan, so they can amend the LDC at any time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. PEREZ: Yes, they are -- they're two separate. For the record, Cristina Perez, code enforcement. Two separate issues. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. PEREZ: And the county has no objection with the request of the six-month extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other discussion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we get a motion from the board? MR. KELLY: Motion to grant the extension as requested for six months. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and we have a second. All those in favor? Page 20 September 27, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. Six months. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. MS. PEREZ: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good luck. MS. BAKER: Next will be No. 6, which was No. 6 from impositions, Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Case CELU20100004523. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we go on with this, I see that they're in compliance, if I'm correct. MR. SNOW: No, they're not in compliance. They have paid. Not in compliance. They have their SIP in process, SDP in process. It's just taking them longer to do it than they anticipated. There was some delays on the county side, and they've been getting their permits. They've been diligent in what they're doing; it's just taking longer for them to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I guess he said it all. MR. BENNETT: He has. My name's Conway Bennett, for the record. I'm the park manager. But, yeah, we've been trying to get everything done. We didn't get the SDP actually approved till, like, June. We took down the old fence, got the fencing permit, the fence is up, and we're in the process of getting the fire hydrant and the roadway. It's just taken three weeks Page 21 September 27, 2012 or more to get a permit, and then to get people to sign off on it, so we're just chugging along trying to get it done. I want it done before everybody gets back, but it's not going to happen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time do you need to, you think, iron everything out? MR. BENNETT: If everything goes smoothly, I'd say six months. MR. SNOW: It's not a health and safety issue. It's outside storage, paving. Just to give you a little bit of history on this, the builder did use it for outside storage. It never was permitted, it never was on the original Site Development Plan. That's the reason -- somebody complained. That's the reason this happened. So they have been diligent in trying to do what they're going to do, and they have used it for a long time. There's no health and safety issue there. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion for extension, six months. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It also carries unanimously. Page 22 September 27, 2012 MR. BENNETT: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MS. BAKER: Okay. Moving onto Letter B, stipulations, the first stipulation will be No. 3 from hearings, Teymur Akhundov, Case CESD20110008224. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning, again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see this was a problem with the expired -- two expired permits. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And do you want to go through your stipulation? MR. BALDWIN: Sure. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? Yes? MR. KELLY: One question. There's three permits. Page 23 September 27, 2012 MR. BALDWIN: Correct. MR. KELLY: Are they the same permit that's been reapplied for multiple times, or are they different areas? MR. BALDWIN: They're three separate. There's one for a guesthouse, one for an attached garage, and one for another garage. The previous owners -- this owner bought the property, I believe, in June of this year. He has reapplied for the new permits, and he's in the process of it. They were -- two of the permits -- one permit was rejected, one permit was canceled, and the other permit he applied for a demo permit to remove the garage. He has actually applied for two other permits. MR. KELLY: To help with timing, how long do you think it would take someone to get this taken care of? MR. BALDWIN: He says in six months everything should be done. He's working pretty diligently to handle this, and he has paid the operational costs already. MR. KELLY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 24 September 27, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next stipulation agreement is No. 8 from hearings, Jenna Holbrook, Case CESD20120002199. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see this was a garage conversion. MR. AMBACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And why don't you read us the stipulation that's been agreed to. MR. AMBACH: Very good. For the record, Investigator Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Abate all violations by obtaining Collier County building permits or a demolition permit, inspections, and a certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Unpermitted living space must be unoccupied and utilities turned off within 24 hours of this hearing until the building permit or demolition permit has received a certificate of completion/occupancy, or a fine of$250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may Page 25 September 27, 2012 abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You've heard the stipulation and you've signed it. MS. HOLBROOK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think you can make all the dates that were required in here, the 24 hours and the 120 days? MS. HOLBROOK: Yes, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept it. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second, Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. HOLBROOK: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation will be No. 17 from hearings, Peter Salazar Lopez and Monica O. Coariti DeSalizar, Case CESD20120007390. Page 26 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see we have three of them there. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Joe, you want to read the stipulation? MR. MUCHA: Okay. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement, and this is the stipulation for Case CESD20120007390. I met with Mr. Antonio Brown this morning that provided documentation that he is acting as power of attorney for the respondents. It was agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; That the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Good morning. MR. BROWN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you give us your name for the record. MR. BROWN: Antonio Brown. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have the authority to -- Page 27 September 27, 2012 MR. BROWN: Yes, I'm here in behalf of Peter Salazar and Monica Coariti. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you know the stipulation; you agree to it? MR. BROWN: Yes. Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anything from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BROWN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't go away. That's the first case. MR. BROWN: Oh, sorry. MS. BAKER: The next case will be No. 19, Case CESD20120007393 -- nope, I'm sorry. Number 18, Case CESD20120007391, Peter Salazar Lopez and Monica O. Coariti DeSalizar. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe? Page 28 September 27, 2012 MR. MUCHA: Okay. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I met with Mr. Antonio Brown this morning, who provided documentation that he is acting as power of attorney for the respondents. There was an agreement made between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; And to abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Same questions as before. MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have permission to agree to this? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you do agree to the stipulation as written? MR. BROWN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How say the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. Page 29 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Last one. MS. BAKER: Next is No. 19, CESD20120007393, Peter Salazar Lopez and Monica O. Coariti DeSalizar. MR. MUCHA: Okay. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I met with Mr. Antonio Brown this morning, who provided documentation that he has the authority to act as power of attorney for the respondent. An agreement was made between the parties that the respondents shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, to abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into Page 30 September 27, 2012 compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. And same questions again. MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have the authority to act on behalf of the respondent? MR. BROWN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you accept the stipulation as written? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How say the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. MR. BROWN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Moving on to Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Case Page 31 September 27, 2012 CESD20110011764, Paul and Cathleen Burcky. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Two-story concrete and wood structure located in the rear property area without first obtaining Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4425 North Road, Naples, Florida, 34104; Folio No. 26480720007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Paul A. and Cathleen T. Burcky, 4425 North Road, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: August 30, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: December 16, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 16, 2012. Date of reinspection: January 27, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is the one we heard earlier today that requires how much time to bring them into compliance? Sixty days? MR. KELLY: That's what they're requesting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion that a violation exists. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 32 September 27, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. And your suggestion? MR. ASARO: I'm going to read the -- MS. BAKER: Recommendation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASARO: Yeah, my recommendation. MR. SNOW: Didn't you already make a recommendation for that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. KELLY: And let me clarify. The reason we jumped ahead so quickly is because in the respondent's own letter, he admits to a violation. MR. ASARO: The code enforcement -- for the record, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by obtaining all Collier County building permits or a Collier County demolition permit, request all required inspections, and obtain a certificate of completion within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Page 33 September 27, 2012 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. Do we have any suggestions from the board? MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation and, to fill in the blanks, 60 days, as requested by the respondent, or a fine of$150 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments on the motion? He specified in the letter that he needed the $400. So just as a follow-up to the respondent, should this motion pass, the one $150 a day adds up to more than the 400 quite quickly, so he should be aware of that, and that if he needs more time or something -- MR. ASARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to come back to us before the date is reached. Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. ASARO: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next is No. 2, Case CESD20120001351, Steve and Alice Poseley. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Page 34 September 27, 2012 Code of Laws and Ordinances, building and land alteration permits, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and (e). Description of violation: Interior demo work being done with no permit obtained. Location/address where violation exists: 706 West Valley Drive, Bonita Springs, Florida, 34134 -- 34134; Folio 24537040001. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Steve and Alice Poseley, 24741 Northeast Ce Dah Drive, Elkhart, Indiana, 46516. Date violation first observed: January 27, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: February 4, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 29, 2012. Date of reinspection: July 2, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe, do you want to give us your recommendation -- oh, first, do we find the respondent in violation? MR. KELLY: I make a motion to the effect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion that the respondent is in violation. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 35 September 27, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Now, your recommendation. MR. MUCHA: Okay. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. Recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days; And to abate all violations by obtaining all inspections and certificates of completion/certificates of occupancy for Permit PRBD20120203404 within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement; If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My first question is, how much time do we really think is required to have this done? MR. MUCHA: They were asking for the end of October, so maybe 90 days, just to be safe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any motion from the board? MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the county's recommendation with 90 days, and a fine of$150 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. Page 36 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is No. 4, Case CEVR20110014958, Tiburon Golf Ventures Limited Partnership. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 4.06.05(K)(2). Description of violation: A portion of the required buffer vegetation is missing and not maintained. Location/address where violation exists: 3195 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, Florida, 34109. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Lou Conzulmann, Director of Golf Course Maintenance, Tiburon Gold Ventures Limited Partnership; 24301 Walden Center Drive, Suite 300; Bonita Springs, Florida, 34134. Also care of registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 1201 Hayes Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301. Date violation first observed: November 23, 2011 . Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: December 15, 2011 . Page 37 September 27, 2012 Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 15, 2012. Date of reinspection: August 14, 2012. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Kelly, you want to present the county's case? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Andrew Kelly, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like now to present case evidence into the following exhibits: Four photographs dated 9/26/2012, and a copy of the Collier County approved Landscape Plan SDP 97-166. MR. KELLY: Make a motion that we accept the exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen these pictures first? MR. RAINVILLE: We have. We also have some pictures and other information, but we have seen those. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have no objection to them? MR. RAINVILLE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 38 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Thank you. At this time I'd like to present the code's case. Code enforcement received a complaint about the required landscaping at the Tiburon golf course maintenance facility. On November 23, 2011, I conducted a site visit of the facility and determined that there were missing required landscape trees and shrubs were too small. This is a violation of the LDC for the required B buffer. The B buffer is described in the Land Development Code, 4.06.02(C)(2). At this time would you-all want me to explain the B buffer, or do you want to wait? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure, why don't you. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Okay. What's highlighted in 2 is from the Land Development Code. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Fifteen-wide, 80 percent opaque with the one landscape buffer six feet in height, which may include a wall fence, hedge, berm, or a combination thereof, including trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center. In the planting of a hedge, it shall be a minimum of 10-gallon plants, five feet in height, three feet in spread, and spaced a maximum of four feet on center. I'll go to the diagram. The area that's circled in green is a typical B-type buffer. Okay. And we'll go to the chart. Per the Land Development Code -- this is Table 2.4, also in the same section -- when you have a golf course maintenance building, No. 12, and it abuts a vehicle right-of-way, which is No. 11, it is a required B buffer, and this is also shown in the evidence with the Site Development Plan showing the landscaping plans. I'll continue on. On December 15, 2011, I met with -- excuse me Page 39 September 27, 2012 -- met with Mr. Lou Conzelmann, director of golf course maintenance for Tiburon. I advised Mr. Conzelmann of the complaint and what was needed to bring the landscape into compliance. After discussing this, I personally served Mr. Conzelmann with the notice of violation along with a copy of the Site Development Plan showing the B buffer. On January 24th, I met with representatives of Tiburon. We discussed the case and what needed -- bringing the landscaping into compliance. Tiburon agreed to install the missing trees, and code enforcement agreed to allow the existing shrubs to grow for six months through the rainy season, then recheck for compliance. A reinspection was for August 16, 2012. On August 14, 2012, I, again, met with Mr. Conzelmann on site. The required trees were installed, but the shrubs did not attain the 6-foot height and 80 percent opacity. I advised Mr. Conzelmann that I will take this to the code enforcement unless compliance is achieved before then. On September 17, 2012, I met with Mr. Conzelmann on site, personally served the notice of hearing. So we have given them nine months to come into compliance since the original notice of violation. It should also be noted that there was a previous case on this in which the investigator advised them to plant some vegetation which is -- which currently is still there, but that vegetation was planted incorrectly in size because the order from the previous investigator was not correct, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to show us the photos that you have? MR. ANDREW KELLY: The picture shown right now -- just to let you know that the facility is on the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston. It's on the northwest corner. What you're looking at is the shrubbery on the outside of the fence as you look from the Livingston Road side. Page 40 September 27, 2012 This is a -- closer up of that same location. Just to let you know that the shrubbery is ranging between three feet to five feet on -- through most of the area. This is the most extreme case of what the worst part of the vegetation looks like. This is the vegetation. It is -- all the vegetation, the shrubs that you're seeing are cocoplum. This is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road. And this is another photograph showing that the -- approximately three feet in height in the vegetation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're saying -- if you go back to that previous picture, Jen, those bushes should be about as high as the crossbeam on the fence or close to that or -- MR. ANDREW KELLY: Yes. That fence is running -- no, it's, I think, supposed to be a 6-foot fence. But according to the measurement, that fence is about 5 feet, 7 inches tall. So the vegetation should be as tall as the top of the fence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it should be five feet high? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Six feet high. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Six feet high, and the plants are planted so many feet on center. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Correct. MR. MIESZCAK: Miracle Grow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any other information you'd like to provide? MR. ANDREW KELLY: No, sir, not at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any questions of the officer? MR. RAINVILLE: I don't have questions of the officer. I just want -- and agree with what he has said. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RAINVILLE: But we do have a couple of other things we would like to add. Page 41 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Your turn. MR. RAINVILLE: Sir, as -- Richard Rainville, and I'm the general manager of the Tiburon Golf Club, and Lou Conzelmann, our director of golf course operations superintendent. As Mr. Kelly referred to just minutes ago, that there was actually a case that started well back into 2010. In November of 2010, there was a violation given to the club, and a supervisor -- excuse me, Investigator Susan O'Farrell is -- was the investigator on the case. At that time she did meet with Lou Conzelmann, and they discussed what we would need to plant in this area to comply with the codes. At that time we did. We complied with what was given to us, the directions. And we do have some handouts that have the original complaint and the directions, the instructions to correct, specifically, which we followed to the letter, and -- or were in February of 2011, this case was closed and signed by the inspector. So she came back out, inspected it, said, "you are in compliance," and the case was closed. A year later, we -- there was another complaint on the same area, which is when Mr. Kelly got involved and came out and met with the club and Mr. Conzelmann. At that time he said that -- to us that -- we understand that you were given instructions previously; however, they were incorrect. They were not the right instructions. Well, we had already spent $7,500 to get in compliance for this area. And also at that time we agreed, okay, we're going to do all we can to get this to the proper height. It was not a question about whether the plantings were the incorrect plantings or they were planted improperly. It was a matter of the height. And we said, well, in time these are going to grow to the proper height. We were following what we were told to do. We spent the money to do that, and we added additional trees. Mr. Kelly agreed that -- at that time to grant us more time. We put an aggressive fertilization program in place. The area Page 42 September 27, 2012 itself is really -- there's a -- there is a canal, essentially, in front of it, so it's pretty low, and in the wet season it really doesn't grow as much as we had expected because it floods. And so we believe at this point that we have done what we were asked to do. Now code enforcement came back to us and said, we were wrong, sorry, and we want you to rip this out and replant it, and we just thought that that was unreasonable, considering the fact that this is just -- this will get -- we will comply, we will meet the code requirements once these plants reach that proper height. And we believe that that will happen. You know, realistically, it's still going to take more time. We were granted six months. That was certainly not enough time. We have seen a progression. And we do have some photos that do show from 2011 when the original planting was done after the first violation and the height of those at that point and then a six-month-later progression into today. And, granted, there were a couple of areas there that are weak. They -- as Mr. Kelly indicated, the most dramatic of the areas, most of them are within a couple of feet. And in those weak areas, we certainly would go back in and we would -- we would -- at this point we have no problem with trying to aggressively get those to grow to the proper height. Perhaps even add additional plantings in those areas to progress the process, get it along as fast as possible, and we're just asking for more time on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long is that buffer? How many linear feet? MR. RAINVILLE: There is a diagram here that says. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, if you'd like to accept their packet into evidence, we can give that to you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a motion to accept their package? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the packet. Page 43 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. KELLY: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: If they're submitting it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the second. Do you want to submit that package to the board so that we can see it? MR. RAINVILLE: Yes, we would like to submit the package to the board. Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the package. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the package. MR. KELLY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. RAINVILLE: To get back to your question, we believe it's 460 lineal feet on the Vanderbilt side, which is the south side, and 550 lineal feet on the Livingston side. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are any parts of that in compliance? MR. RAINVILLE: That's a very good question. I would say that they're close, but I'm not going to -- MR. KELLY: No, sir, they're not in compliance. MR. RAINVILLE: -- be the expert on that one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 44 September 27, 2012 MR. RAINVILLE: If we look at what the original inspector told us, they were in compliance. But today, no, that's not the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you seen this package? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Yes, sir, I have. MR. RAINVILLE: And the photos are very similar with the exception of the earlier photos in February 2011 that show that there was virtually nothing there. We planted the materials that we were required to at that time. And then in October of 2011 you can see significant growth, and that is in a period of, roughly, six months. And then here we are September 2012. And it depends on what angle you take these photos from. And it's important also to note that, visually, from Livingston Road, it's three feet higher than this area is. So, of course, there's going to be a perception that it -- that you're going to see part of the buildings. And that will always be the case, whether this is six feet or seven feet. And Livingston Road was not there when they originally built the club. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The trees portion of the buffer -- MR. RAINVILLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that were required and that were planted -- MR. RAINVILLE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- there's no problem with that? MR. RAINVILLE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's part of the $7,500 that you spent? MR. RAINVILLE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RAINVILLE: And the 75- does include all the irrigation that we had to put in in additional irrigation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So basically it's the height of the plants, and there are some empty spaces that need to be filled in as Page 45 September 27, 2012 well. MR. RAINVILLE: There are some areas that have struggled to grow, and it's basically based on where they are. So, yes, that's accurate. There are some weak areas. MR. MARINO: Did you say that that portion has irrigation on it? MR. RAINVILLE: It all has -- the whole thing has irrigation on it. And we have -- six, seven months ago really began an aggressive fertilization program. And so we've seen some progress; granted not enough, according to the code enforcement at this stage. And we're simply saying, we believe that we will get there, and we'll work to do that. We're not arguing -- at this stage we were told the wrong information, okay. We get that. We did have a significant investment at that period of time to do that. We've done everything we believe that was asked of us to do. Now we're saying that the code that was given to us was wrong. Okay. We need more time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The process that we have is, find you in violation or not find you in violation, and if you are found in violation, then to work out the remedy after that. So I go to the board. Yes, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. KELLY: Actually, I have two. One is to the respondent. Could you just quickly clarify the difference between what was originally told and what was told just six months ago? MR. RAINVILLE: I can tell you -- and I will state that I was not at the club at this period of time. I'm just going off of the record here. The original -- no, that's not the original one. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Excuse me. If you -- if you don't mind, I'll go ahead and answer that question, because I will -- I have Page 46 September 27, 2012 the notice of violation from back from December 17, 2010, that was written by the previous investigator. The corrective action that she described -- I'll read the whole corrective action. It says, where a fence or a wall fronts an arterial or collector road as described by the Transportation Circulation Element of the Growth Management Plan and continues. And here's the issues: 3-gallon single-row hedge a minimum of 24 inches in height spaced 3 feet on center shall be planted along the right-of-way of the fence. The required trees shall be located on the side of the fence facing the right-of-way. Every effort shall be made to undulate the wall and landscaping design, incorporating trees, shrubs, and ground cover into the design. It is not the intent of this requirement to obscure from view decorative elements such as emblems, tile, molding, and wrought iron, and that comes from the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, basically, the difference was 24 inches to 60 inches? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. RAINVILLE: Three gallon to 10 gallon, I think. Is that what the -- MR. ANDREW KELLY: I'll have to go back and look at the exact -- MR. KELLY: I'm just curious, why did Susan cite that then? MR. ANDREW KELLY: I can't answer that. The standards that she cited were for a fence standard. But other than that, I do not -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it for a different size buffer? MR. ANDREW KELLY: No, I -- I don't understand what happened. You know, there is a site development plan shown clearly, a B buffer. The citation was incorrect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: One more quick question; it might tail into this. Andrew, when you were going through your presentation, you had Page 47 September 27, 2012 said that the average mean height needed to be six feet; is that correct? MR. ANDREW KELLY: That is to come into compliance with the Land Development Code. MR. KELLY: Okay. Because under the diagram, the B buffer says 60 inches, which is five feet; is that at planting or -- MR. ANDREW KELLY: Yes, sir, that's at time of planting. MR. KELLY: Okay. So it should be 72 inches? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Sorry. Diane? MS. FLAGG: Just simply, the investigator made an error. We went through all the paperwork when the second complaint came in. So we went through the investigator's paperwork, and Ms. O'Farrell simply made an error, a mistake. MR. KELLY: So there is a site development plan that's already been approved and agreed upon that supersedes any of that anyways? MS. FLAGG: As well as the Land Development Code. And I will tell you that Investigator Kelly gave these folks more time than is normally given because of the mistakes made by the prior investigator. MR. KELLY: Okay. So just to kind of sum it all up. They originally thought it had to be three-gallon, 24 inches. The real code says 10-gallon, 60 inches at planting, growing to 72. If they were found to be in violation, would they then have to go and replant all of this over again to the 10-gallon, 60-inch height? MR. ANDREW KELLY: I think in the reality, if that -- when we came through it, that I would require them to put in 60 inches -- I'm sorry, the 72-inches, since we go back to the 1997 Site Development Plan, that this shrubbery should have always been at that particular location. We would probably have given them additional time, another six months, say, if it was at five feet, to come to that six feet to -- you know, to meet that 80 percent opacity. MR. MARINO: I have a question. I might be a little bit Page 48 September 27, 2012 confused. When the original plans were drawn up, the landscape plans were drawn up, what was required at that time? MR. ANDREW KELLY: The same standards that are -- that we presented today. A B buffer has not changed as far as the requirements. MR. MARINO: The 60 inches? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a question also, maybe to dovetail with the previous question. Will these plants that are currently in the ground reach the 60- or 72-inch height? If so, how long will that take? MR. ANDREW KELLY: They will definitely eventually reach that height. The smallest one on there is going to take, you know, probably several years. But I do not see that more than -- you know, two years, is probably being, you know, pretty generous that they will reach their 60 -- I'm sorry -- the 72-inch height requirement. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So it's a matter of age of the plant as being the required time to wait for it to gain the particular height we need -- MR. ANDREW KELLY: Correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- for the existing plants? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Probably should have found Jack and the beans, but that's another story. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: So last point of clarification. Originally, when this property was developed, there had to have been some sort of approval for them to develop it and to continue to develop it and to get COs for buildings and so forth. So originally the county did approve the site as to plant, and now they've come back, and Susan found an issue, cited it wrong, now we found another issue, and we're getting it corrected. Page 49 September 27, 2012 I feel as though the county may have made two errors; one, the original approval and now, of course, with Susan's error. And now I'm -- to the board, I'm in favor of allowing the plants to stay, maybe replacing the few that are just, you know, little guys that aren't going to make it there in the next three or four years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have to find if they're in violation first, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: I'm just throwing it out there for the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a question on the pictures that you provided. MR. RAINVILLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see two pictures, one on top of the other. MR. RAINVILLE: That's correct. Just a different angle. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One looks like -- that it's almost in compliance, the top picture. And I don't know, did somebody trim the other ones? MR. RAINVILLE: Two different locations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Different locations? MR. RAINVILLE: Yes, it is, that's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So my question to Mr. Kelly is, are both of these in violation or just one? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Are you looking at the September 2012 photo? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, I am. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Okay. The -- no, they're all out of compliance; they have not reached -- achieved their 80 percent opacity. There's no reason for them to -- the area that you're looking at in the top photo is on the west side of the entrance to the golf course maintenance facility. They're very close to being in compliance. They are, you know, just a little over five foot in average height at that Page 50 September 27, 2012 location, where the other trees -- excuse me -- scrubs on the bottom photo, which is showing the east side of the entrance, those are averaging between three and four feet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask you another question. When this was -- this PUD was originally approved, Livingston Road was not built. MR. RAINVILLE: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So a B buffer was not required because it was not on a main road. MR. RAINVILLE: I'd make the assumption that that's correct, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So at some point when Livingston was built, a B buffer was then required. What I -- the problem I have is there was misinformation given, they spent $7,500 to plant bushes and so forth, cocoa palms (sic), and now coming back saying, no, you know, this is what it should have been, how it should have been planted. I feel that if we do find a violation, that they should have ample time to let what is there grow, and if there are pockets that there are no bushes or holes or gaps, that we should require at that point what -- I guess, a five-foot bush. So I make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 51 September 27, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we find you in violation. MR. KELLY: I have opposition, and I'll explain the opposition. If the citation is for both zones and there was no road on one, which required it to be a different buffer zone and now there is a road, how are they in violation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It should have been grandfather. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Just let -- what was cited in the previous -- by the previous investigator talking about the arterial portions of it, and, you know, in the site development plan, it was very clear that on all sides of the facility had to have B buffer. The side to the north and to the west, immediate west of the facility, was not required to have a buffer because the area in question is part of the preserve, so that preserve automatically acted as the buffer, exceeded the standards of the buffer. So what we're looking at here are strictly the two sides, what's currently on the east side and the south side of the facility. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the county knew that they were building Livingston Road for the last 50 years. I mean, that road took a long time to get built. So they probably -- and I don't know this for sure unless I were to look at the SDP -- SDP, whether they required a B buffer or not. They probably did knowing the road was going in there. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Okay. The drawing you're seeing is from the approved Site Development Plan showing the B buffer. In order for them to have received their certifications as far as -- they would have had to come into compliance at that point in time. You know, as far as we know, at the time of completion, they were in compliance with the county regulations at that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The motion to find in violation passes with Mr. Kelly dissenting. So now how do we put the baby back together? And I -- my Page 52 September 27, 2012 comments are on what Mr. Lefebvre said; it looks like one of the buffers is almost there. And based on everything that's happened, that's a good thing that it's almost there, and I guess that it's possible we can wait for it to grow a little bit longer. The other side, where you may have missing plants, it's up to you, but I would think that that probably could be worked out with the county to replace the plants that are missing in those areas that have nothing and put some additions in there to bring it up to a higher level. MR. RAINVILLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So those are my two-cents worth on where we are. MR. MARINO: What's the amount of time we're looking for? MR. RAINVILLE: We would like two years. We think that that gives us ample amount of time to get everything to the 72 inches, granted there will be areas that will be in compliance well before that. And we will look at those very weak areas and plant the 10 gallons and come up with a new landscape plan to get it to where we need to be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would it be possible to have you go -- I was going to say, come up with some sort of a stipulation agreement on that, work out the details? MR. KELLY: I'm in favor of the two years as well. When you look at the comparison pictures between 2011, 2012, after a year and a half, we see substantial growth. So I think given the two years and, you know, give them the time to grow it, I think we'll be all right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Again, I think if we can strike something where, if there are holes, they're required to plant the five gallons -- or 10 gallons -- 10 gallons, 60 inches in height, so follow the current -- follow the code, and then for the plants -- for the bushes that are not quite there, give them two years. So if we can structure an agreement in that regard, I think we would be in good shape. MR. RAINVILLE: We can put together a landscape plan and Page 53 September 27, 2012 then ask Mr. Kelly to come in and review that. Just do it. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if we can maybe -- do you want us to strike? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, no. I'd rather they agree -- the county and the respondent agree to the plan that they're going to enact, and we should give them sufficient time to do that. And if a meeting of the minds can't be made, then bring it back before the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you want them to go and do that now, and then before we're done -- MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, I think we can provide you with a recommendation that may be helpful for you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to do that right now? MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes? MR. KELLY: Take five? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We should take 10. MR. KELLY: Take 10 minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Why don't we take 10 minutes while you're working that out, and I can go in the back and take care of the facilities. MR. RAINVILLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ten minutes. Be back here at 10:30. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Let's see where we left off. You had a recommendation for us. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Yes, sir. Our county recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$84.58 incurred in the prosecution Page 54 September 27, 2012 of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, replace shrubs four feet or less on the outer side of the existing chain-link fence. At the time of planting, the shrubs should be a minimum of 10 gallon, 60 inches spaced four feet on center -- four feet center. The installation of the shrubs shall be complete within X amount days of this hearing, or a fine of X dollars per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Two, the remaining shrubs over four feet shall be allowed to grow to 72 inches, as required by the B buffer, within X days or a fine of X dollars per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RAINVILLE: With all due respect, we object to the recommendation based on the four-foot number. We're back to where we were. We're asking for more time. And we believe that there's only a few areas that are really struggling, and that may only require a minimal amount of planting versus the potential of 4- to 500 foot of planting at 10 foot. I mean, that will get very expensive, 10 gallons. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What they provided is a recommendation. MR. RAINVILLE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then the board has the ability to add days, take away days, and do what is necessary. And I'd like to see what the board has to say. MR. RAINVILLE: Understood. Thank you. MR. MARINO: I have a question for Mr. Kelly. Not you. How many plants do you think are less than four feet? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Excuse me. MR. MARINO: How many plants do you think are less than four feet? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Less than four feet? MR. MARINO: Yeah. Page 55 September 27, 2012 MR. ANDREW KELLY: I would -- and this is -- approximately, you know, 40 to 50 percent of the vegetation out there's probably less than four feet. MR. MARINO: And these plants were all planted at the same time? MR. ANDREW KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. RAINVILLE: Correct. MR. MARINO: So is it possible irrigation, bad plants, not enough fertilizer? MR. ANDREW KELLY: There's many reasons for shrubs not to take, but I'll let Mr. Conzelmann talk. MR. CONZELMANN: On the south side they're doing well. I think the better soil. And the irrigation is operational in all the areas. On the Livingston Road side, that area gets flooded in summer when it rains. That's in an FP&L easement there, so they have -- they struggle there mostly because of too much water, actually, in the summer. That's why there's some of the weak areas. We've been fertilizing them on a 30-day schedule, I mean, you know, lightly fertilizing, so we've been really trying to push them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other questions from the board or any suggestion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I have a comment. I share, you know, Mr. Marino's sentiment that I think that having to replace 40 percent of the vegetation, given the stride that they've made in just a year and a half, I think would be a little excessive. You know, what I was thinking that the recommendation would look more like would be to replace the bushes or fill the bushes that had voids. That's what I thought we would see on the recommendation. And, you know, I think the four foot is just a little excessive. Page 56 September 27, 2012 If they want to go the four-foot route, well, then maybe two foot, you know, would be a little more palatable, if you will. But in any case, that's just my thoughts. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think -- I agree with Mr. Kelly, and a couple comments I have. Maybe if there's a way we can structure it that if there's a hole larger than a certain width you would have to plant a 10-gallon plant, 10 gallons. Also, we're going into the dry season. So unlike most times, where the section's flooded, more than likely that will grow a lot better. And maybe what we should do is have a review. Give them two years, have a review on a six-month period, and that way six months from now we'll see that the rainy season will be just starting a new rainy season, and if, in fact, these are starting to take and grow a little bit better. But I would agree with Mr. Kelly that maybe if there's any plantings that are less than two feet, then they would have to replace those with a 10-gallon or 60 inches in height. MR. MARINO: I have another question. Hopefully these plants will grow real quick. Now, when it gets to -- this is my own knowledge. When it gets to that six-foot mark, do they continue to grow, or do they get trimmed down to the top of the fence? I'm asking whoever can answer that question. MR. CONZELMANN: I'd prefer for them to continue to grow, because cocoplums don't grow really tall, maybe 15 feet or so at maximum height. But even when they get to the top of the fence, when you're driving on Livingston, you're kind of still looking down into the building. And so I would -- one of the reasons we chose cocoplums is we thought we could get a nice plant up taller than actually the fence in the long term. MR. MARINO: They're not going to have a problem with that Page 57 September 27, 2012 that they're too tall and whatever? You never know. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, it is a big building, and isn't the most attractive building. So the higher that these grow, the better. But code says that they have to be six feet, 72 inches. MR. MARINO: Minimum six feet. MR. LEFEBVRE: So anything higher is fine. Do you actually have the order? Can you place the order -- do you have it at all, or is it -- it's kind of just jotted down? MR. ANDREW KELLY: It's going to be -- no, I can't put it up there. It will look awful. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. Maybe with a little help of the board I can strike a recommendation, or an order, I should say. Respondent pays operational costs in the amount of$84.58, is that correct, within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: Time frame would be two years from today. MR. RAINVILLE: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: With review of six months periods, so -- MR. RAINVILLE: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- come back and tell us the progress. And if there are some areas that are not -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Performing. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- thank you -- growing like they should, then we could possibly modify it. MR. RAINVILLE: Understood. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And if after two years they are not in compliance, the fine per day will be $200 per day. Now, that was the easy part. The hard part is coming up with -- let's say, first of all, if there are any plantings that are less than two feet, they will have to be replaced with whatever code states, I think, it's 10-gallon -- MR. MIESZCAK: Ten gallons. Page 58 September 27, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: -- container, no less than 60 inches -- MR. KELLY: Sixty inches. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- 60 inches. MR. RAINVILLE: Understood. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. And if there's any gaps in the bushes more than -- MR. KELLY: Four foot is what buffer B requires. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Anything more than four feet, then you would have to replace -- or you would have to plant 60 inches in height, 10-gallon containers. Now, also, if anything dies and there are new gaps more than four feet, those would have to also be replaced with a 60-inch height plant, coco palm (sic) plant. MR. RAINVILLE: Understood. MR. LEFEBVRE: With -- and 10 gallons. MR. MARINO: Question. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did I miss anything? MR. MARINO: Question. Full of questions today. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, no problem. MR. MARINO: Are there any -- how tall were these plants when they were first planted? MR. RAINVILLE: Three gallon. I don't know how tall that is. MR. CONZELMANN: They're 24 inches; three gallon, 24 inches. MR. MARINO: So there should not be anything 24 inches. MR. RAINVILLE: If there is, we would replace it. MR. MARINO: That's bad, and you'll have to replace them anyways. MR. RAINVILLE: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that's saying that -- that's what they were told to do originally. So if those plants are underperforming and they're less than 24 inches now, then they're probably never going to Page 59 September 27, 2012 be 72. MR. MARINO: That was my point. And they should be replaced with the 10-gallon cans. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I'm trying to correct an error that was made by the county. MR. MARINO: Sounds good. MR. LEFEBVRE: Basically, if those plants that were planted per what was told by (sic) you prior are not performing, you're going to have to replace them. MR. KELLY: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion; we have a second. Do we have any more comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. RAINVILLE: Thank you. MR. ANDREW KELLY: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Jean, did you -- MS. RAWSON: I hope so. I'm not sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you want to repeat it? MS. RAWSON: Pay the operational costs in the amount of $84.58 within 30 days. Page 60 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MS. RAWSON: Everything has to happen within two years. Review in six months. If it doesn't -- you're not in compliance in two years, it's $200 a day. Then you are replacing the plants that are two feet or less with a 10-gallon container, no less than 16 inches in height? MR. LEFEBVRE: Sixty, six zero. MS. RAWSON: That would have been a big one. If there's gaps in any of the bushes more than four feet, you must plant the, you know, 10-gallon container 60 inches in height. And also if any of them die, you have to plant the same -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Anything under 24 inches would also have to be replaced with a 60-inch, 10-gallon plant. MR. MARINO: Do they understand that they have to do that now and not two years? MS. BAKER: We need to clarify that, because the -- you required anything within two feet, but within what time fame? MR. MARINO: That work should be done now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Stop the elevator. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me amend. MS. RAWSON: Right, because the way you wrote it or said it, they've got two years to do it. MS. BAKER: Right. MR. MARINO: Right, that's why I brought it up. MR. LEFEBVRE: That must be done now. MR. KELLY: So 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, 60 days. MR. KELLY: So if you're amending your motion, I'll second that amendment. MS. BAKER: Sixty days or what -- what is the fine amount as well? Page 61 September 27, 2012 MR. KELLY: Two hundred a day, I think. MR. MARINO: Two hundred dollars. MS. BAKER: Two hundred dollars a day? Because it was 250, I believe, for the first section. MR. KELLY: Everything was 200. MS. BAKER: Two hundred. MR. KELLY: That's what you had said, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have an amended motion, which we'll cover in a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. The amendment was -- the proposal was the work that needs to be done now needs to be done within 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. RAINVILLE: Understood. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. RAINVILLE: Perfect, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. KELLY: Good catch. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sorry for the confusion, but that's why I wanted some help on this one. MR. MARINO: I'm sitting here going, well, they could wait the Page 62 September 27, 2012 two years. MS. BAKER: Okay. Next case is No. 7, Case CESD20120000189, Jorge G. Rodriguez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Garage and CBS guesthouse with no valid Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 1165 Everglades Boulevard North, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 40579120002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Jorge G. Rodriguez, 1165 Everglades Boulevard North, Naples, Florida, 32120. Date violation first observed: January 6, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 13, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 13, 2012. Date of reinspection: August 1, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Eric? MR. SHORT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to provide us with the county's case on this? MR. SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One aerial photo obtained and printed from the Collier County property appraiser's GIS mapping on June 26, 2012, and two photos taken by myself June 27, 2012. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those? MR. SHORT: They have. Page 63 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to accept? MR. KELLY: Make a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: That's just the aerial photo showing the two structures in the rear of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which is the main house? The one up front? MR. SHORT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. A house, and what other structures behind it? MR. SHORT: Here and here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Were you ever back there to see what they were? MR. SHORT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: If you look at the following pictures, it shows more detail. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. MR. SHORT: This case originated on January 6, 2012, for an Page 64 September 27, 2012 unpermitted garage, CBS guesthouse, and an unpermitted chain-link fence with a gate. The property owners have since permitted the chain-link fence and are working with Mr. Bob Lockhart, a local engineer, to bring the garage and CBS guesthouse into compliance. This case was withdrawn from the June hearing, as the respondents had not been in contact with Mr. Lockhart, and it was suggested that the respondents contact the board of professional engineers. Over the past few months the respondents claim Mr. Lockhart has been in contact with them but has yet to prove compliance efforts. To date, the permits have been applied for. That is the garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two -- that's about a 20-by-40 garage? This looks like a similar picture to it; two garage doors in the front, or windows or whatever. MR. MARINO: Are those double-door garage doors? They're double doors. They're not a single door, right, from here? MR. SHORT: Right. It's double door. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The block work there, does that look strange to you or just to me? The course on the bottom or the two courses on the bottom. MR. MARINO: There's three course. MR. SHORT: It does appear to be not normal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It appears to have been put in by me. MR. KELLY: Question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. KELLY: None of these structures were approved in the original permit application for the home, correct? MR. SHORT: They were never COed. MR. KELLY: Oh, so it is all part of the original -- MR. SHORT: Right. Page 65 September 27, 2012 MR. KELLY: -- but they don't have CO. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They were never permitted. MR. SHORT: The permits were applied for; however, they did expire. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They expired. No inspections? MR. SHORT: A lot of inspections were missing, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you know when they expired? MR. SHORT: The original permit was in 2006 for the guesthouse and 2004 for the four-car garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Eric, are you saying that that blockwork was all approved? MR. SHORT: A lot of the inspections weren't done, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It doesn't matter. The building permits expired, so it never exists right now. Okay. Any more pictures? MR. SHORT: That is all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any more case evidence? MR. SHORT: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Rodriguez? MR. SELENEZ: Good morning. I'm not Mr. Rodriguez. This is Mr. Rodriguez. He's the owner of the house, of the property. And I'm -- my name is Lanyard Selenez. He is my father-in-law. He doesn't speak English. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And do you have his permission -- MR. SELENEZ: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to testify on his behalf? MR. SELENEZ: Yes. MR. MARINO: He should be up there. MR. KELLY: Did you swear him in as a translator? Page 66 September 27, 2012 THE COURT REPORTER: No. Are you going to translate? MR. SELENEZ: I don't know if he's (sic) translating or speaking on his behalf. He's not even up here. MR. MARINO: Well, shouldn't he be up there with him? MR. KELLY: The reason why I'm asking is because if you had to ask him any questions throughout this and he answered you -- MR. SELENEZ: I understand. MR. KELLY: -- she would need to swear you both in. (The interpreter was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English to the best of his ability.) MR. MARINO: Your father-in-law needs to be up there also. MS. BAKER: Can he also be sworn in? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SELENEZ: And he understands, but he just doesn't speak it that much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you provide us your information on -- MR. SELENEZ: We were in front of you guys back in June 2012, and the reason was because we started -- they purchased the house on December of 2011, and the house was already like this. And we tried to finish the guesthouse and the garage. And then I started working with an engineer, Bob Lockhart, and he disappeared for, like, a month, then we got cited over here. And they gave us a couple of months, some time period for me to find the guy. He actually said he was on vacation without telling me. So from there on we kept on talking. So he forgot that we needed the energy counts, calculations. And then I spoke with this guy, A/C mechanical, and he provided me the energy calculations from 24th of September, which I have them here with me. And that was the only thing holding me back from submitting the plans, according to Bob Lockhart. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you submitted the plans? Page 67 September 27, 2012 MR. SELENEZ: I haven't. And he said -- I spoke with him Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, trying not come over here, and he said that he was going to probably do it tomorrow, and I don't believe that he's going to do it tomorrow. I'm going to say a month from now, to be sure, and not give a specific time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments or questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does a violation exist? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that a violation exists. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So the property is in violation. Now, what is the -- what plans do you have going forward from here? MR. SELENEZ: I have to give him this. He already has it. These are the energy calculations, and he already has them. He has to Page 68 September 27, 2012 put everything together, sit down with me, make sure that whatever we agree, like the plans of the house are ready, according to me, and then submit them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But energy calculations have to do with air-conditioning -- MR. SELENEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and cubic feet, et cetera, et cetera. MR. SELENEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But what is standing in the way of getting the building permit? Ordinarily you get the building permit, and then you provide that information during the course of building. MR. SELENEZ: He said that he needs this in order for him to go forward with the permits, to submit the permits. MR. SHORT: They're doing a permit by affidavit, so that kind of changes the process a little bit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How could you do a building (sic) by affidavit when the building's not built and the permits have expired? They don't exist anymore. MR. SHORT: Well, actually, they -- to correct what I said, they haven't applied. So we don't really know what their direction is. That's what Mr. Lockhart has stated. They are doing a permit by affidavit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes? MS. FLAGG: Just to clarify. A permit by affidavit is that they can hire an engineer to review the structure or portions of the structure that have already been built, and the engineer has to qualify that it was built according to code, then sign and seal it and submit to get a permit and not have to reinspect what has already been done. So what this engineer is doing is seeking to get, presumably, an inspection for the block work, the roof, but he has to provide calculations to the permitting department before they will issue a permit. Page 69 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, I've seen many, many permits by affidavit, generally on completed structures, on structures -- I mean, this is, I think, a one oh -- I forgot, Mr. Kelly, the roof number, and the early inspection is 1.05 and 1 .04, whatever, but this is so far from being built. So he can do an affidavit on this without any inspections ever being done? MS. FLAGG: Ultimately, the building official will make the final determination if they want to charge for additional inspections. So the engineer, once he gets this, he can submit it. He's signing and sealing that it was built according to code. When it comes in and they issue a permit, the building official may choose to do inspections himself, and then any inspections that the county doesn't actually do would be refunded back to the applicant. So you still have a check and balance there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, would he be getting a permit by -- or affidavit for just the work completed or for the complete building? MS. FLAGG: Work completed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just work completed. And then going forward he would have to get all the county inspections? MS. FLAGG: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's for both buildings? MS. FLAGG: I don't know if they're doing a permit by affidavit for both. I presume so. Yes? MR. SELENEZ: I think so, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know, Eric, whether it's for both buildings? MR. SHORT: I do not know. There has been no application process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You say it's for both buildings? MR. SELENEZ: I think so, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. I think we're past that stage Page 70 September 27, 2012 actually, because we found a violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: But what is your time frame to complete this? MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, would you like us to read a recommendation for you? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, but before you do that, let me ask a question. When you finally go for your permit, it's going to be a few dollars, to say the least. Are you in a position to come up with that money for the permit? MR. SELENEZ: Yes. And what's a few dollars? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I say few, but that's with a little smile. It will be more than a few. MR. LEFEBVRE: You've got to finish the structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the permit -- just to apply for the permit. MR. SELENEZ: I understand that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we're going to see what the county recommends on this, okay? MR. SHORT: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy, within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement; If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of Page 71 September 27, 2012 abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My only question is, we're talking about getting the permits, not completing the structure. In other words, operational costs of$80.29, and then so many days to get all the required permits, not to complete the construction. That's not that time there. MR. SHORT: In the county's recommendation it does say obtain certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. So then the whole structure would need to be completed. MS. BAKER: Inspections and CO included. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, after they pull permits, then they have six months to get all their inspections. Per the permit, correct? MR. SHORT: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So maybe what we can do is have a time frame for them to get their permits, and then six months from when they get their permits to complete so we're in line with the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe that you can get more than six months. MR. LEFEBVRE: You can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can get six months, and then if you do something, you get another six months, and then another six months. So it would have to be some sort of-- let me ask the respondent. How long do you think you will need -- let's say that everything works out and you get your okay from the engineer and you get your permits to complete the construction. Are these both going to be garages or they're going to be living space? MR. SELENEZ: I think one of them is going to be living space and the other one is going to be a garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How long do you think it Page 72 September 27, 2012 would take to complete everything? MR. SELENEZ: To complete, I would say, fair, year and a half. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other building is complete, right? MR. SELENEZ: Is complete, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So maybe we can break it down to getting the permits and CO for that other building in a shorter period of time and then this building would be a longer period of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Structure A and Structure B. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Or define what structures are which. This structure is at the very back of the property, correct, this picture? MR. SHORT: No, that's not correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the garage? MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. SELENEZ: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is going to be the living space. MR. SELENEZ: That's the guesthouse. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Guesthouse. MR. MARINO: Guesthouse. MR. MIESZCAK: So that building behind is a guesthouse, or is that a garage? MR. SELENEZ: It's a garage. MR. MIESZCAK: That building back there, the other picture? MR. KELLY: If we can go back to the aerial. MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah. If you can go back to the picture, it looked like a guesthouse. That's a garage? MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's the lanai you're looking at. MR. SHORT: The previous picture you just looked at is the structure in the rear of the property here. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MR. SHORT: And the guesthouse is the structure towards the middle of the property. MR. KELLY: Can I go ahead and make a recommendation that Page 73 September 27, 2012 we accept the county's recommendation with the time frame of one year and a fine of$250 per day. We just keep it clean and simple, you let them have the one year to do whatever's necessary both to get the permits and to complete construction. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that recommendation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, call for vote. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries. MR. KELLY: And to explain to the board, in the past when we used to separate permits and construction, we got into almost, like, a double jeopardy situation if they didn't pull the permit and they also didn't complete the construction where you had both fines running concurrently. So that's why we kind of started going towards just picking an end date. MR. MIESZCAK: Simple makes sense. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. BAKER: Can you just clarify for us what the fine amount was per day? MR. KELLY: Two fifty. Page 74 September 27, 2012 MS. BAKER: Okay, thank you. MR. KELLY: One year. MR. SELENEZ: So from now I'll have a year to get the permits and finish both the garage and the guesthouse? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. SELENEZ: And what do I do if in a year I'm not done? What am I supposed to do? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You need to come back to the board MR. SELENEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- prior to the year. MR. SELENEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe 10 months or so, and come back and make your case, show the progress that you've made, you pulled permits, you have two out of seven inspections done, whatever it is. MR. SELENEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then at that time the board has the ability to extend the time or not. MR. SELENEZ: Sounds good. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just another -- I would recommend that the other building, which is substantially complete, work on getting that -- MR. SELENEZ: That one just needs the electrical; that's it. MR. LEFEBVRE: So get that COed. That will show progress. MR. SELENEZ: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: We strongly look at, if you come back to us -- as you probably heard, we had, I think, four or five cases where people asked for an extension of time, and we look at what progress you've made. So we definitely want to see progress. If we don't see progress, then, obviously, that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is not good. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's not good. Page 75 September 27, 2012 MR. SELENEZ: No problem. Thank you. MR. SHORT: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is No. 9, Case CESD20120006821, Robert D. Campbell, Jr., and Nina M. Campbell. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Garage enclosed and turned into living space with a bathroom and a mobile home without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 2331 8th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 39393640009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Robert D. Campbell, Jr., and Nina M. Campbell, 2331 8th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: May 7, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 10, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 6, 2012. Date of reinspection: August 15, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs taken May 7, 2012; one aerial photograph from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website; and one violation determination completed by the building official, Thomas DeGram and Myron Jacobs, the chief structural inspector. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could I have a motion to accept the Page 76 September 27, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. KELLY: (Raises hand.) MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: This case originated as a anonymous complaint about a converted garage into an efficiency without permits, and he's renting it out. On May 7, 2012, I met with the owner, Mr. Robert Campbell, and he admitted that the garage is a separate unit/apartment with a bathroom. He stated that the house is exactly the same from now as when he bought the house in 2002. At that time he also admitted that the mobile home for the storage -- I'm sorry. The mobile home for storage was not permitted as well. I informed the owner that I would do the research on the property and get back to him with my findings. May 10, 2012, I made a site visit to the property to inform the owners of my findings. At that time I spoke to a man at the property who confirmed that he was living inside the garage. I informed -- I'm sorry. Research indicates that the home did have a garage and not an apartment with a bathroom, and the mobile Page 77 September 27, 2012 home does not have a Collier County building permit. I posted the notice of violation on the property and the courthouse and sent the owner a notice of violation in regular and certified mail. To this date I have not had any contact with the owners, despite several site visits. On August 20, I received confirmation from the building official in the form of the violation determination letter that I submitted in my evidence packet. To this date, still, no permits have been applied for, and the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This sounds awful familiar to me. Did we have them or somebody here on this case? MR. BALDWIN: I have two current cases as well that have been before the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to show us those photos? Looks like a Chevrolet. MR. BALDWIN: The garage -- I apologize for not having great photos. I didn't feel comfortable, and I was not permitted to go any closer on the property at that time. Some of the indicators we look at for violations of converted garages you can see on this, with the indentation around -- around the garage where a wall has been put up. And normally one of the indicators that tells us is the concrete in front of the garage as well. If you look on the -- this side of the photo that is the mobile home. It is a mobile home or the type of trailer that you would see at a commercial -- a commercial construction site, commercial trailer. I don't know if it's specifically a mobile home, but it's definitely a commercial-type structure, like an office, and the owner stated that it's filled with storage at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: And then the aerial photo, it has -- it shows the structure in the back in the aerial photo. It's in the center of the Page 78 September 27, 2012 picture. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any comments from the board, or do we find them in violation? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that a violation exists. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing -- I'm sorry, yes -- and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a Page 79 September 27, 2012 final inspection to confirm abatement; If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to try to fill in the blanks on this? Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I just have a concern about the gentleman who's renting out the converted garage and the safety of that person. So if we accept the county's recommendation, I suggest -- or I would be in favor of a shorter time frame, then everything gets taken care of and permitted correctly, or that we add a provision that that particular section is vacated and the utilities turned off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe that section should be vacated immediately. That's what we've done in the past on cases like this. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How do we enforce that, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We use the -- code enforcement can check to see if there's anybody there, and the sheriff would be the vehicle to use to have them removed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that a viable option? MS. FLAGG: The challenge there is in an eviction process, the property owner has to do the eviction. The property owner has not responded to any contact by the investigator. We could confer with the County Attorney's Office what the options are in this case, because this is a little bit unusual. Normally, you have the property owner here and they agree to have the person leave. That's -- this case is unusual in that the property owner is just refusing to even make contact. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the property owner been spotted Page 80 September 27, 2012 in his residence on the property, or he just doesn't return calls? MR. BALDWIN: I actually saw him yesterday on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You saw him? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. Typically, before all of our cases we go out the day before and we check the violation. I would say the relationship between us is very uncomfortable at this point, so I didn't feel comfortable speaking to him at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: On the other hand, it has been like that since 2002, the respondent says. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. KELLY: So, you know, maybe 60 days or something along that time frame would be acceptable. It's a decent balance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think whatever we come up with, we need to have some means of getting the homeowner's or the respondent's attention so that he starts to -- a dialogue between the county and himself. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, one way would be have a pretty large fine attached to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we're looking at having the tenant move out in a short period of time, we can structure maybe 30 days for the property to be vacated. We can't force him to vacate. But one way of prodding the owner would be maybe having a $500 fine. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we also have an option to have the Sheriffs Department accompany one of our personnel, if necessary, so he feels more comfortable with the dialogue? MS. FLAGG: That's always the option, you know, that the investigator can take the Sheriffs Office with him, but it requires participation with the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have access to, pardon the expression, rental unit? Can you knock on the door and speak to the Page 81 September 27, 2012 person who's living there? MR. BALDWIN: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not permitted? MR. BALDWIN: I wasn't granted access the first visit that I had with the property owner, but he did confirm that there was a separate unit -- apartment unit inside the garage. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would you need the owner's permission, or if the tenant was there, could you knock on the door and get -- MR. BALDWIN: The owner lives at the unit as well. The owner -- the owner, his wife, and other -- I -- he stated that he's renting out other rooms in his house as well. They're all living there. Part of the complaint was the efficiency. I couldn't confirm there was an efficiency. But based on the owner's statements to me, I could surmise that it's probably -- he's running an efficiency there. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's multiple structures on this property. So the owner lives in the structure that -- MR. BALDWIN: Correct. The mobile home in the back or commercial trailer, what it is -- he's stated that he's using it strictly for storage. He has no -- I also had another case on the property, or other complaints on the property, about illegal outside storage. And as you can see in the photo, there's a bunch of outside things that are being stored, such as a lawnmower, maybe garage (sic) cans, some gas cans, so you can typically see that those are other indicators that the garage is, you know, not used for storage. MR. LEFEBVRE: Being used for something other than what it should be intended. MR. BALDWIN: No one is living in the mobile home in the back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you tagged the property at all, the contact, besides -- MR. BALDWIN: Yes, I have. I've posted the notice of violation, I posted the notice of hearing, and I've spoken to the owner Page 82 September 27, 2012 at the location. I've spoken to the guy who said he's renting out the garage at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to take a shot at the -- MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I'll make a motion that -- 60 days and $200-a-day fine and operational costs, $80.57, within 30 days. MR. MARINO: I don't think that's strong enough. MR. LEFEBVRE: Neither do I. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, don't forget, I'm looking at it this way. There's a tenant there. Innocent person, part of the thing. He's been there a while. So we jump up with seven days or a week, I mean -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No, no, I'm not looking -- I don't think we're looking at time frame. We're looking at dollar amounts. MR. MARINO: Dollars. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think it's big enough to stick. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I made the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: You can amend the motion. MR. KELLY: I concur. I think because there's a potential health and safety issue, that the fine should be higher. So, Larry, I'd be willing to support it if you had something -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll withdraw. I like the motion. That's okay. No problem. I like it. MR. KELLY: Make -- all right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Make a motion. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with a time frame of 60 days and a fine of$500 per day. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: With the operational -- $80.57 be paid within 30 days? MR. KELLY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, and we Page 83 September 27, 2012 have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought you were going to oppose it. Okay. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is No. 10, Case CESD20110017156, Ronnie G. and Beverly J. Bishop. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Turned permitted garage into a guesthouse. Location/address where violation exists: 1329 St. Claire Shores Road, Naples, Florida, 34104; Folio 294600009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Ronnie G. and Beverly J. Bishop, 1329 St. Claire Shores Road, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: February 28, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: February 28, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 29, 2012. Date of reinspection: May 14, 2012. Page 84 September 27, 2012 Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BOSA: Good morning. For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, two photographs taken December 13, 2011, of the structure in violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion; we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BOSA: This case originated from a complaint in regards to someone living in a structure that was not permitted for that specific use. On December 14, 2011, Investigator Gomez made a site visit and spoke with the owner of the property, Mrs. Bishop, who confirmed at that time that her and her husband were living in the structure, a structure originally permitted as a garage. Research conducted by the investigator, myself, and the chief building official showed that the structure was permitted originally as a nonliving-space garage and was not to be used as living space. Page 85 September 27, 2012 Investigator Gomez and myself have had numerous correspondence with Mrs. Bishop about the violation and spoke about plans to abate the violation. My last meeting with Ms. Bishop stated that she cannot move forward with taking care of the violation and will just walk away from the property. And as of this date, no permits have been applied for. The structure still remains vacant, and I haven't heard from Mrs. Bishop. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The structure is vacant, you said? MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOSA: That would be the structure to the left. You see they have a door and window dressings and chairs in front and stuff. That's that structure there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there another structure on the property? MR. BOSA: Yes, there is a structure on the property. All the structures are permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is anybody living in the other structure? MR. BOSA: No, nobody. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there's nobody living on this parcel at all? MR. BOSA: No. She just walked away from the property. I think she moved up to Gainesville because of her husband being ill, things like that, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does a violation exist? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 86 September 27, 2012 MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A violation exists, unanimously. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a recommendation? MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement; If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KELLY: I have a question, real quick. MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Just clarification. In your presentation you had stated that all structures had already permitted and approved. MR. BOSA: Correct. MR. KELLY: The recommendation seems to lean towards a structure that hasn't been permitted yet, and I can see how you would Page 87 September 27, 2012 need to, then, get it re-permitted and then change of use if they were going to remain (sic) the use as a guesthouse. MR. BOSA: Correct. MR. KELLY: But if they were going to use it strictly as storage, there wouldn't be any permits necessary, correct? MR. BOSA: To demo. They would have to pull a demolition permit to bring it back to its original state and would have to be inspected. MR. KELLY: Okay. So there was plumbing and electrical added that were not part of the original. MR. BOSA: Yes, exactly. MR. KELLY: I understand now. Thank you. I'll take a stab at it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: I suggest -- I'll make an amendment (sic) that we accept the county's recommendation with a time frame of 60 days and a $250-per-day fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. With the $79.72 paid within 30 days? MR. KELLY: Yeah, whatever -- yes, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 88 September 27, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this in lis pendens? MR. BOSA: No, it's not. I did check yesterday. There's not a lis pendens or foreclosure process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this an elderly woman? MR. BOSA: No, it's not. I would say mid '50s. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A youngster. Okay. MS. BAKER: Next case is No. 11, Case CESD20110017435, Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.13F. Description of violation: Failure to submit annual PUD monitoring report. Location/address where violation exists -- Folio No. 732800002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation: Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC, 1083 North Collier Boulevard, Unit 113, Marco Island, Florida, 34145; Care of Sean M. Coutts, 1172 South Dixie Highway, No. 453, Coral Gables, Florida, 34146. Date violation first observed: May 16, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 18, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 18, 2012. Date of reinspection: June 19, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, David. MR. JONES: Good morning. For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to just present to you the case details right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. JONES: And those are, on December 16, 2011, code Page 89 September 27, 2012 enforcement received a request from the planned unit development coordinator to issue a notice of violation to Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC, citing failure to submit annual PUD monitoring reports. On May 18, 2012, a notice of violation was issued to Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC. In that time, I've had no correspondence with the owners of the property. A reinspection was done on September 26, 2012. And to date, Rookery Bay's annual PUD monitoring report has not been submitted. Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How many times has it been requested for by the county? MS. BEARD: Laurie Beard, for the record, PUD monitoring. They get an original notice two months prior to it being due, then another one goes out two weeks after it was due. So they get two, but in this case I've probably sent six out to different addresses for them. MR. L'ESPERANCE: They're verified, appropriate addresses? MS. BEARD: I took them off of Sunbiz, and I actually went into the -- Mr. Coutts lives in Miami, and I actually went through their property appraiser and sent them to the different homes, even, that he owns there. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you so much. MS. BEARD: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we -- MR. LAVINSKI: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, Mr. Lavinski, who is our PUD expert. MR. LAVINSKI: Is this a single parcel PUD? So they're the only -- so it is the Rookery Bay Business Park themselves? MS. BEARD: Yes. It's just one large parcel. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. And is this the annual update or the original? Page 90 September 27, 2012 MS. BEARD: It's the annual update. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion to find them in violation? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I make a motion that they're -- a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation for us? MR. JONES: I do, and the recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, respondent must submit two complete copies of the planned unit development annual monitoring report form, one of three traffic count options, and one executed affidavit within blank days of this hearing, or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a Page 91 September 27, 2012 final inspection to confirm abatement; If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would any -- yes, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Just a quick question. Since this is an annual submittal, do you feel as though 14 days is adequate time to submit? Like, would they be able to use last year's and just modify it slightly, or are they relying on outside entities that they'd have to hire and perform any services? MS. BEARD: They actually never turned in last year's report either. The last one I received was 2005. Because the property is vacant, they could, honestly, fill it out in about five minutes. MR. KELLY: Okay. Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lavinski, generally, who has filled these out, is our resident expert on this. Would you like to tackle it, Mr. Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. In this case I'd like to make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation for the 80.86 to be paid in 30 days and that they be given 15 days to comply or a fine of$100 per day. MR. KELLY: 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. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 92 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. JONES: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is No. 13, Case CESD20120004794, Hernandez Equity Invest, Inc. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Expired Permit No. 2006063986. Location/address where violation exists: 1261 DeSoto Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 41105240009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Luis Hernandez, 346 Northeast 27th Street, Miami, Florida, 33137. Date violation first observed: May 27, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 29, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be correct: April 28, 2012. Date of reinspection: June 20, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Patrick. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning, again. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs taken yesterday, September 26, 2012, and one aerial photo taken from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. Page 93 September 27, 2012 MR. KELLY: So moved. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Move and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: This case originated from a vacant and foreclosed home sweep in the Golden Gate Estates area of Collier County. I observed that the structure had an expired permit, No. 2006063986, and the last inspection was on May 19, 2008. On May 2, 2012, I spoke with the owner, Luis Hernandez, and he stated that he is in current litigation with the bank for the money to finish the structure. Still at this time no permits have been applied for, and the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to show us the photos? MR. BALDWIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like a big house. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's camouflage. MR. BALDWIN: As you can see -- actually, you really can't even see the structure from the property because of the vegetation, and then you go onto the property and you can barely see the structure because of the weeds and other vegetation that has grown up since Page 94 September 27, 2012 2008. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the building -- the original building permits were 2006? MR. BALDWIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And did they have any inspections at that time? MR. BALDWIN: Oh, yes. It's had quite a bit of inspections. It's basically just the outer shell -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: -- of the structure remains to this day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Were you able to get to the house itself and -- MR. BALDWIN: Oh, I can get right up next to the house, but there are other debris -- I can probably get, probably, 20 yards from the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the inside's done also? MR. BALDWIN: Oh, no. It's looks like -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a shell? MR. BALDWIN: It appears just to be the shell of the structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does a violation exist? Would anybody like to take a stab at that? MR. KELLY: I'd make a motion a violation exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion that a violation exists. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 95 September 27, 2012 MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation for us, Patrick? MR. BALDWIN: Sure. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement; If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this in foreclosure? MR. BALDWIN: No. He's -- the current owner, he's suing the bank, and I believe maybe a contractor ran out on him or took his money. So I'm not quite sure. He was kind of vague about what's going on. He stated that he did intend to finish it, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to take a stab at this one? MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with 90-day term and $200-per-day fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, 81.15 being the occupational costs that -- within 30 days? Page 96 September 27, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Patrick. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 14, Case CESD20120006219, Craig Morris. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: It's a violation of Collier County Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and Florida Building Code 110.1 . Description of violation: Carport or detached garage that was constructed between 2002 and 2003 with no valid Collier County permit issued. Location/address where violation exists: 5845 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida 34116; Folio 38167240005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Craig M. Morris, 5845 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: April 23, 2012. Page 97 September 27, 2012 Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 25, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 8, 2012. Date of reinspection: August 16, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Jonathan. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. How you doing? For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, code enforcement. I would now like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: A 2002 and a 2003 aerial-view photo of the property in question and a final determination letter from Myron Jacobs, chief structural inspector, and Thomas DeGram, building official. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the exhibits. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibits. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MUSSE: On April 23, 2012, while researching the property for another case, I observed the detached garage located in the rear yard. After looking at the aerial photos on the Collier appraiser site, it shows that the structure was built between 2002 and 2003. Page 98 September 27, 2012 I do have a photo of the aerial. MR. MIESZCAK: Looks like your house. MR. MUSSE: Research was conducted by myself, Mr. DeGram, and Mr. Jacobs, and came to the conclusion that the structure was in violation. Property owner would need to apply for a permit by affidavit and obtain a demolition permit to have the structure removed. Was able to get in contact with Mr. Morris and informed him of the violation. At this time I prepared the case -- or conducted multiple inspections with no change in violations. No permits have been attained. At that time I prepared the case for hearing. A prehearing inspection was conducted today. Violation remains. No permits have been issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've been in contact with the respondent? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what does he say about it? MR. MUSSE: Well, at first he said it was built before he even bought the property. But when I explained the photos, he goes, okay, I built it. And -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: "You caught me." MR. MUSSE: Basically, he has no intentions of permitting it at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does a violation exist here? MR. MIESZCAK: Yes, I do (sic). Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 99 September 27, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. I'm a little confused as to -- he admitted that he built it without any permits, and he is not going to do anything about it. MR. MUSSE: Well, I guess the next case will kind of clear up why. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Bring it all together? MR. MUSSE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MUSSE: Oh. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement; If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods 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 owner. Page 100 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to take a stab at filling in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I make a motion we accept the county's recommendation. And here again, a 90-day time frame or a $200-a-day fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. With 80.86 paid within 30 days? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes, within 30 days, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Which brings us to the second case, same respondent. MR. MIESZCAK: Next case, No. 15, Case CEPM20120004563, Craig Morris. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: Violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article VI, property maintenance code, Sections 22-231(12)(c), 12(i), 12(b), and 12(q). Page 101 September 27, 2012 Description of violation: Dwelling with missing roof, windows, and doors, damaged interior and exterior walls. Location/address where violation exists: 5845 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio 38167240005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Craig M. Morris, 5845 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: March 27, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: April 26, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 26, 2012. Date of reinspection: August 16, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. MUSSE: For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Code Enforcement. I would now like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken by myself on March 27, 2012. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Page 102 September 27, 2012 MR. MUSSE: I conducted an initial inspection on March 27, 2012. The gate was locked; however, I was able to view the violation from the neighboring property. There I observed an unsecured structure with missing doors, windows, and roof. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the main structure? MR. MUSSE: This is the main structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you'll pardon the expression, this is the main structure. Okay. Did they have a fire or -- MR. MUSSE: Yeah, yeah. I contacted Mr. Morris, and he informed me that there was a fire about a couple years ago, and he's basically -- he stated that he's working with the insurance company on his claim. But there's been no movement, no -- not looking towards a resolution at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The fire was when? MR. MUSSE: A couple years ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So nobody lives on this property? MR. MUSSE: No, sir. No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does a violation exist? MR. KELLY: I think it does, and I'd like to make a motion to the effect. MR. MARINO: Appears to be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 103 September 27, 2012 MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation for us? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing, to repair all damages noted in the property maintenance inspection report or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement; If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would anybody like to take a stab at filling in the blanks on this one? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I'll do this one, too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion we accept the county's recommendation that the $80.86 operational costs be paid in 30 days and, again, 90 days or a fine of$200 a day. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Page 104 September 27, 2012 All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thanks, Jonathan. MR. MUSSE: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 20, Case CEPM20120001592, Thu-Nhut Nguyen. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: It's a violation of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(12)(i) and 22-242. Description of violation: Unsecured home on Estates-zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: 480 8th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 39260480004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Thu-Nhut Nguyen, 13342 Lucille Street, Garden Grove, California, 92844. Date violation first observed: February 2, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: February 8, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 5, 2012. Date of reinspection: July 20, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. Page 105 September 27, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Patrick? MR. BALDWIN: Hello, again. Last time you'll see me today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Promise? MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. I would like to present case evidence in the follow exhibits: Four photographs taken February 2, 2012; 3 photographs taken May 25, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photographs. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: On February 2, 2012, I responded to an anonymous complaint regarding a house in disrepair. I observed that most of the windows and the doors on the structure were removed or broken. On February 8, 2012, I posted the property and sent the notice of violation regular and certified mail. In late May of this year, the owners boarded up the windows and the doors but, unfortunately, within a week, the home was broken into again. This past Monday I spoke with the owners, Ms. -- the owner, Ms. Nguyen, and she stated that she would be down here in mid October to Page 106 September 27, 2012 abate the violation. She stated that she would also get permits for windows, and she would like to be moving in here into the property within a year. To this day, the violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: Was this the one that we had a -- MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. KELLY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we find this in violation? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: Would you like the recommendation, sir? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I was wondering if-- have the Sheriffs Office been notified to keep an eye on this place or -- MR. BALDWIN: The structure is on our community -- Golden Gate Community Caretaking list, so, yes, they have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But they haven't caught anybody? Page 107 September 27, 2012 MR. BALDWIN: No, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Even the people who were squatting the place? MR. BALDWIN: Well, we could never determine if anyone was squatting inside the place. Typically, a lot of these homes, it might be teenagers or people in the neighborhood. You never know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Your recommendation, Patrick? MR. BALDWIN: That the code enforcement board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by, one, applying for and obtaining a Collier County boarding certificate, providing a detailed plan for rehabilitation or demolition, and completing the boarding within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; and, Two, obtaining all required Collier County building permits to repair all unsecured openings or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, 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 notify and abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It appears -- we should be as benevolent as possible on this. This is really not the fault of the respondent; more, it's vandalism that's caused these problems. My two-cents worth. Page 108 September 27, 2012 Would anybody like to take a stab at this? MR. KELLY: All right. Make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with time frame of 120 days or a fine of $150 per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: And operational costs of$81.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Forty-three. MR. MIESZCAK: And I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Jen? MS. BAKER: Just for clarification, do you want that for section -- there's two parts of this recommendation; part one, which is just requiring get a permit or a demo permit, and then the second part is obtaining a boarding certificate within X amount of days and then completing the work. MR. KELLY: My intention was to definitely give her plenty of time to come down through the end of October. I know that we don't have a December meeting, so it basically pushes it through the rest of the year; that was my intention. Even for boarding, because it sounded like in her request that she wanted to be here to not just board it but to actually put in windows. Page 109 September 27, 2012 MS. BAKER: Okay. So you want to give her 120 days to board the structure as well? MR. KELLY: Yeah. That was part of her request, so I'm really just, kind of, bowing to what the respondent wanted. MS. BAKER: Okay. But there's another section on Section 2. MR. KELLY: Right. MS. BAKER: If you give her 120 days, and then how many days from the boarding certificate would you like to give her to fix things, if that's the option she decides to take? MR. KELLY: Oh, I'm sorry. I see what you're saying. In that case, can I restructure 2 and just have 120 days or a fine of$150 a day to board and have it completed, if that's what she elects to do? MS. BAKER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would give her more time, because she said she wants to replace the windows and doors and whatever, and she'll have to pull permits on that, et cetera. And, again, this was strictly vandalism that caused this violation. MR. KELLY: I can amend it to six months if that's more amenable to the board. MR. MARINO: One hundred eighty days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's okay with me. MR. KELLY: Hundred and eighty? MR. MARINO: Hundred and eighty. MR. KELLY: I'll amend to 180 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second the motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Second 180 days. THE COURT REPORTER: Who seconded? MR. KELLY: Larry. He had the original second, so he amended his second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 110 September 27, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Break for lunch? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: County's buying. MS. BAKER: Next case we're moving to No. 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number 4, Case CESD20110007349, Judy S. and Silas Pacheco. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Patrick, you've changed. MR. LETOURNEAU: I have. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Original violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Violation location is 1330 Golden Gate Boulevard East, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 39206920007. Violation description: A chickee hut and swimming pool constructed without Collier County building permits. Past order: On April 26, 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, OR4795, Page 309, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 27, 2012. Page 111 September 27, 2012 The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between August 25, 2012, and September 27, 2012, a total of 34 days, for the total amount of$5,100. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$81 .43 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $5,181 .43. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have -- MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Okay. Which brings us back to the agenda. And do we have any -- we are now to reports. Sorry it took me so long to get there. The pages are heavy. MR. MIESZCAK: We understand. MS. FLAGG: No worries. MR. MIESZCAK: It's the double tabs you use. MS. FLAGG: Just very quickly. Since November 2008 to date, the banks have expended $2.961 Page 112 September 27, 2012 million to abate code violations, and these are properties that they haven't taken title to yet, which resulted in the abatement of 2,602 cases. Since July of'09, the BCC and yourselves have waived $6.9 million in fines due to compliance by property owners. For the time frame of September 6th through the 19th, we've received 292 complaints. Year to date, we've opened, as a result of those complaints, 8,075 cases. The investigators during this time frame of September 6th through 19th completed 1,026 inspections of property. Year to date they've completed 26,833 property inspections. Year to date the district teams, in conjunction with the community task force teams that were formed to address blight prevention, they've sponsored 122 meet-and-greet events; they've provided 20 cleanup events for community members, which means they have -- make arrangements to have dumpsters come out and clean up properties at no cost to the property owner; and they've conducted 23 vacant-home sweeps. Also during the time frame of September 6th through 19th, there were 290 lien-search requests completed. Year to date there's been 7,230 lien searches completed. Lien searches with open cases during the time frame of the 6th through the 19th there were 10 properties that were requested lien searches where they found open code violations on. Year to date they've identified 340 properties that had code violations on them when the lien search was requested. So the process of creating a mechanism to assure that people don't buy properties without knowing that there was a code case on it, as you saw through some of the cases today, they -- people are choosing to purchase properties with code violations on it, which is no issue, but we make sure that they get notified that there is a violation on it, and that's done through that lien-search program. Page 113 September 27, 2012 And I do need to share some sad news with you. Investigator Gomez recently passed away from -- he was an investigator with our department. MR. MIESZCAK: Sorry to hear that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I wanted to let you know that the information that you provided, the summary information, I shared with our neighbor brothers and sisters on the government committee, the ones who were -- I guess, co-negotiated the rules, and they were very impressed with it. They're sending it out to all the members. MS. FLAGG: Great. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: With that said, next meeting is October 25, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: I make the motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a motion to adjourn. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? We are adjourned? There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :57 a.m. Page 114 September 27, 2012 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD .4" gilja■ I:ERT • Ar• , CHAIRMAN These m' utes approved by the Board on6 , r Jas presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 115