Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/25/2012 R October 25, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF TH , CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MAR g Naples, Florida October 25, 2012 1 lu 3 BY: 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: District I District 2 . District CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman District 4 D Larry Mieszcak Kenneth Kelly James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Misc.Cores: Lionel L'Esperance (Absent) Date: Tony Marino (Absent) Item#: ALTERNATES: Ron Doino Chris Hudson (Absent) Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: October 25, 2012 Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman, Chair Gerald Lefebvre, Vice Chair Kenneth Kelly James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — A. September 27, 2012 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS B. STIPULATIONS Lionel L' Esperance Tony Marino Ronald Doino Jr., Alternate Chris Hudson, Alternate C. HEARINGS 2. CASE NO: CESD20120004782 OWNER: JAVIER GONZALEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) A CARPORT BUILT WITHOUT OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 40932000002 VIOLATION 55901120005 ADDRESS: 560 EVERGLADES BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL 34117 CASE NO: CENA20120010345 OWNER: JAMES J. BEAUCHAMP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(d) PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION WITHIN A 200' RADIUS OF AN ABUTTING, IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 23370120008 VIOLATION 55901120005 ADDRESS: 3235 COTTAGE GROVE AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34112 CASE NO: CESD20110016035 OWNER: IRIS LABRIE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 110.1 EXPIRED PERMIT 2001041543 AND NO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OBTAINED FOR PERMIT FOLIO NO: 55901120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2666 TH ST. W. BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 CASE NO: CELU20120008659 OWNER: JESUS JAIME & MARIA MARTINEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) AND SECTION 2.02.03 PROHIBITED USE ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AND THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE CONTAINER ON THE ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 41346400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3014 EVERGLADES BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL 34117 CASE NO: CESD20120010821 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES, LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.13(F) FAILURE TO SUBMIT PUD MONITORING REPORT FOLIO NO: 26169502164 VIOLATION 39270240001 ADDRESS: 2934 COCO LAKES DR. NAPLES, FL 34105 6. CASE NO: CELU20120010679 OWNER: FREDERICK J. KOPPENHAFER REV. TR. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELLE SCAVONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A) LAND USE AND SECTION 2.02.03 PROHIBITED USE OPERATION OF HOMELESS SHELTER/SOUP KITCHEN WITHOUT APPROVAL OF COLLIER COUNTY ZONING DEPARTMENT /OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOLIO NO: 61480920008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1947 SHADOWLAWN DR. NAPLES, FL 34104 CASE NO: CESD20120000771 OWNER: SERAFIN MATURINO & ROMANA MATURINO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) SHED CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 39270240001 VIOLATION OF INTERIOR WALLS, ADDING AND WIDENING OF DOORS /DOOR JAMS WITHOUT ADDRESS: 240 14TH ST. NE NAPLES, FL 34120 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens CASE NO: CESD20100009135 OWNER: OPERA NAPLES, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELLE SCAVONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22- 26(b)(104.5.1.4.4), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1 AND ORDINANCE 04 -41 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) ALTERATIONS OF BUILDING CONSISTING OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ELECTRICAL, ADDING AND REMOVING OF INTERIOR WALLS, ADDING AND WIDENING OF DOORS /DOOR JAMS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 61631160002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2408 LINWOOD AVE. NAPLES, FL 34112 2. CASE NO: CESD20110007803 OWNER: LARRY W. FOX OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) STORAGE SHED IN THE REAR YARD CONVERTED INTO A LIVING SPACE WITH A SMALL KITCHEN AND BATH ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, STORAGE SHED OCCUPIED BY FAMILY MEMBERS FOLIO NO: 37014680007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 681 11TH STREET SW NAPLES, FL 34117 CASE NO: CESD20120004317 OWNER: PACIFICA LAUREL RIDGE LLC. % PACIFICA COMPANIES, LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) A/C HANDLER INSTALLED WITHOUT VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOLIO NO: 3618008008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5543 LAUREL RIDGE LANE UNIT 107 NAPLES, FL 34116 CASE NO: CESD20110005082 OWNER: EAGLES BOND INVESTMENTS, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.4, CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT AND ORDINANCE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) EXPIRED PERMIT 2006071705 FOLIO NO: 306720000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1610 IVY WAY NAPLES, FL 34117 CASE NO: CESD20100006719 OWNER: LESZEK & HENRYKA KLIM OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) ADDITION BUILT ONTO THE REAR OF THE HOME WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 54670003124 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 370 LEAWOOD CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34104 CASE NO: CESD20110005820 OWNER: ERIC T. RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) ADDITION TO THE HOUSE UNPERMITTED FOLIO NO: 36319120001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 546028 TH AVENUE S.W. NAPLES, FL 3411 CASE NO: CESD20120006530 OWNER: PARK EAST DEV. LTD. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.13(F) FAILURE TO SUBMIT PUD MONITORING REPORT FOLIO NO: 36453120006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 210027 TH PLACE S.W. NAPLES, FL 34116 B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE-- November 29, 2012 11. ADJOURN October 25, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order, speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record the 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. And can we have the roll call? MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ronald Doino, Jr.? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance and Chris Hudson and Tony Marino are all absent today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that means that you, Ron, are a full voting member today. Page 2 October 25, 2012 And let's see if we have any changes on the agenda. MS. BAKER: Under number four, public hearings/motions, letter A, motions, we have one addition for motion for continuance. It will be number one from hearings. Javier Gonzalez, Case CESD20120004782. And we have one addition for motion for extension of time, Serafin Riveron, Jr. and Carida Menendez, Case CESD20110012707. Under letter C, hearings, number five, Case CESD20120010821, Koresh Properties, LLC has been withdrawn. Number six, Case CELU20120010679, Frederick J. Koppenhafer Revocable Trust, has been withdrawn. Number seven, Case CESD20120000771, Serafin Maturino and Romana Maturino, has been withdrawn. And under number five, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, number four, Case CESD20110005082, Eagles Bond Investments, Inc., has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes I have. MR. KELLY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Anybody have Page 3 October 25, 2012 any changes? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, why don't we start out with the first one. MS. BAKER: First one will be under motion for continuance, Javier Gonzalez, Case CESD20120004782. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe you can give us a quickie on this and what it entails. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I believe the owner is asking for an extension. He's going to remove it. He just wanted to -- he just needed about 30 to 60 days. That's what he's asking for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does the county have any problem with that? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I spoke to him this week. The county would not object to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've been in contact with him over the last -- Page 4 October 25, 2012 INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any questions from the board? Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Any health or safety issues? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No. There is no electricity, and I believe the carport's just not meeting setbacks, so he's going to remove it. MR. KELLY: No objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: If we make a motion to continue it 60 days, that would put it into January, so I make a motion we extend this until January. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. MR. KELLY: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: Is it the meeting in January? MR. LEFEBVRE: The meeting in January. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Kelly seconded it. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So that is going to be rescheduled for the January meeting. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is under extension of time, Serafin Page 5 October 25, 2012 Riveron, Jr. and Carida Menendez, Case CESD20110012707. (Serafin Riveron and Supervisor Musse were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I looked at this briefly. We just got this this morning. This is the most detailed request that I've seen in a long time. Why don't you give us a -- MR. RIVERON: We've been at it with the county. I want to get the permits. And it's just, you know, been going back and forth. And I don't know if you have the sheet in front of you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. RIVERON: Okay. And Mike Levy, you know, told my contractor that now it takes about 30 days for this board committee. So we're waiting for that just to get the permits now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: According to your letter it looks like you're requesting 120 days to get this all done? MR. RIVERON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How say the county? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: For the record, Jonathan Musse. We have no objections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any questions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to extend it for 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second from Ron. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 6 October 25, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have a 120-day extension. If for some reason you can't get it done before that, make sure you come back so we can adjust the calendar. MR. RIVERON: Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: Next is under letter C, hearings. Number two, Case CENA20120010345, James D. Beauchamp. (Mr. Beauchamp and Investigator Jones were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 6, Section 54-185(d). Description of violation: Presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within a 200-foot radius of an abutting, improved property. Location/address where violation exists: 3235 Cottage Grove Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 23370120008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: James J. Beauchamp, 3475 17th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 23370120008. Date violation first observed: July 11, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July 12th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 12th, 2012. Date of reinspection: September 17th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. JONES: Good morning. For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present evidence of the following, which is a photo of the prohibited exotic vegetation which I showed to the -- Page 7 October 25, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve it. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. JONES: Code enforcement received an anonymous complaint on July 10th, 2012 regarding Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within a 200-foot radius of an approved property. My initial inspection on July 11th, 2012 did reveal Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation. You can see here there's Brazilian pepper as well as ear potatoes. There's some large Australian Pines on that lot as well. The exotic vegetation is located within this unimproved parcel, which address is 3235 Cottage Grove Avenue, and it lies adjacent to an improved property being 3249 Cottage Grove Avenue. On July 12th, 2012 a new Notice of Violation was issued allowing 30 days for abatement. On August 11th, 2012 I met with property owner James Beauchamp to discuss the nature of violation and provide direction in the abatement process. Mr. Beauchamp stated he would start to remove the understory exotics by hand to try to save some money, and utilize the services of a licensed contractor to remove the larger Australian Pine Trees. Page 8 October 25, 2012 I extended the deadline 30 days to accommodate Mr. Beauchamp. My reinspection on September 17th revealed the violation remains at that point. This case was prepped for CEB and that's why we're here today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Beauchamp? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Good morning. First of all, I'd like to point out the photo. It not only includes my lot, it includes on the left side another lot, which is an identical vacant lot. I purchased my lot in 2003 and the current amendment to the ordinance that I'm in violation for wasn't even in existence until 2008. And I feel I should be grandfathered in as far as removing the Australian pines. They have been there since the 1950's. The neighbor who complained next door built her home in 2004 and didn't complain until 2012, eight years later after she built her home. This clearly shows she's using the county as a platform for her personal agenda to purchase my property, which she had requested to buy at one time. I feel I'm being singled out by the county on this issue. This is why I say that. I rode around the area and immediately I found two Collier County owned vacant lots with Australian pines on them and other exotics in violation of the same code, as well as three others, and that was just in a very short amount of time. I feel this code is unfair and unbalanced, which allows personal vendettas and personal agendas. I've included the property descriptions and five photos of the lots I found, which are in the general vicinity. I'll leave it for you guys to look at, if you want. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you want to provide it as evidence, you won't get those back, but you can show them at that time, if the board accepts them. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Great, I'll leave them. I also want to note that I feel the citation was unfair. It only gave me 30 days to fix the problem. Page 9 October 25, 2012 Now, I got an estimate. I have four to six 150-foot Australian Pines that were planted in the 1950's. I mean, in a lot that's unsaturated. I don't think that was a reasonable amount of time to come up with that kind of money and to remove those. Otherwise I would have started. I just -- I thought it needed to be brought before the board. I mean, this causes me an unreasonable financial burden. I've considered building a house on it, but I'm kind of waiting for the impact fees to go down, because they're quite high at this time. If I have to clear my lot, so should the county and everybody else. I don't think just because somebody complains that a person should have to comply to this code. I mean, I'm an honest tax-paying citizen that helps pay taxes to keep the county going. I don't have, you know, I just -- what do we have to do to get this changed? I think it's unfair. I mean, do we need to contact the media? You know, that makes many Collier County lots unsellable until they're cleared. I just -- I just think I shouldn't have to remove the Australian pines. I don't have a problem removing the other things, but that's an extremely expensive, you know, burden for me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you really are -- there are two items that I'm hearing. Number one, the short time frame if you do have to remove them, and number two, are those Australian pines, grandfathered or not? MR. JONES: I'd be happy to answer that. They are not. This ordinance covers all unimproved parcels throughout the county, regardless of the year which they were established, which is hard to determine because they were always there. The types of things that are legally nonconforming are things such as an improved property when a home has been built on that property after an ordinance has already been established. In this case it's been an unimproved parcel, it remains an unimproved parcel. And regarding the initial inception of the case, we only respond to complaints with this ordinance. We definitely don't want to go out Page 10 October 25, 2012 there and, you know, create these types of cases. This is a purely complaint driven case. And that's where we're at on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because, I mean, it's no secret to anybody who lives in Naples, across the street from Home Depot there must be 100 Australian Pines all lined up on the golf course there. MR. JONES: Well, that golf course would be considered an improved property. In that instance the golf course could be classified legally non-conforming. MR. BEAUCHAMP: But, I mean, they're all over. I have photographs of them on county property with a sign saying this is county property. That's not fair to single me out because there's a complaint. What if somebody ran around complaining about every single one? I mean, it would start a war on this subject. I think it -- I think the board needs to address -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you admit those into evidence and we'll vote to accept them or not. Have you seen these pictures? MR. JONES: I have not. But I have no issue. That's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion to accept the respondent's exhibits? MR. KELLY: So moved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion by Mr. Kelly. Second by? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, can I request Mr. Rawson's opinion? The respondent has stated that these are not pictures of this property so they're not really relating to this case. Are they still admittable as evidence? MR. BEAUCHAMP: That is admittable as evidence as far as the right half of it. The right half is my lot where the sign is. The left part is an adjoining lot which has the exact same exotics on it which is within 200 feet of the complainant's property, also adjoining another Page 11 October 25, 2012 single-family residence. So I think, you know, there's two lots there that should have been targeted at the same time if that's what -- you know, it's not fair. I just don't -- MS. RAWSON: Well, because he's -- part of it is his lot, which is the subject of the violation that's alleged. And I guess it's acceptable because he wants the board to see that the other side, which is not his lot, has the same stuff on it. They can only really consider whether or not there's a violation on his lot, not on the other lot. So to the extent that the right side of that picture depicts the property in question, you can consider that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Maybe a better suggestion, Mr. Beauchamp, would be to present those to the county and actually file complaints against them, if you want some form of action to act upon some kind of fairness. If you have people in your neighborhood that have the exact same situation, maybe code enforcement should enforce the rules on them as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me see if I understand it. I'm a little confused. You're property is at that sign to the right? MR. JONES: Yes, that's his property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the property to the -- MR. BEAUCHAMP: This way it's only 50-foot wide. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the property to the left is the complainant's -- although it was done anonymously. MR. BEAUCHAMP: To the right is a home where a lady built a house in 2003. She's the complainant. She asked me to purchase my property. I said no. And so then she filed -- so then she's filing a complaint. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you take the microphone so we can take this. MR. BEAUCHAMP: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There you go, portable. Page 12 October 25, 2012 MR. BEAUCHAMP: So the complainant has a home on the right-hand side, joining the property. If she purchased her home in 2003, and then maybe two -- a year and a half or so ago she asked me to purchase my property and I didn't want to sell it. So then she turned around and turned it into the county as a vendetta type issue to try to pressure me to sell. So the other half of the photograph is another 50-foot lot and then there's a single-family residence here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the lot to the left of that sign that's there, is that an improved property? Is there a house on that? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yes, there is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So now I understand the difference between them. One has a house, so it's grandfathered. So it's grandfathered. One doesn't have a house and it's not grandfathered. MR. BEAUCHAMP: No, they're not separate lots, uninhabited lots. And both on the sides of them are adjoined by single-family residences. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's four lots. There's one house on the left, two empty lots and then another house. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Right, exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: And your lot is -- if you're going from left, your lot is the third property over. And then the fourth one -- you have one lot with a house on the left, a vacant lot, which is adjoining yours, and then your lot -- MR. BEAUCHAMP: No, no. Let me just go here. House, vacant lot, vacant lot, vacant lot, house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So there are Australian Pines on the two vacant lots. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have been cited. Has the person to the left there been cited as well? MR. BEAUCHAMP: No. Page 13 October 25, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any reason? MR. JONES: The reason for that is because this is a complaint driven ordinance. When a complaint comes in, we focus on the area of the complaint. And that's the way we respond to cases such as this. MR. BEAUCHAMP: And that's what I'm saying, this is an unfair ordinance, or zone -- law, because you can use a personal agenda to target somebody. That's not right. Is that what zoning is there for, for personal agendas? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand what Mr. Kelly said before, that if you wanted to, you could file a complaint against the property on the left-hand side there. But that doesn't help your situation at all. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Right, exactly. I'm not that kind of person. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and we have a second to accept your exhibits. MR. MIESZCAK: How many are there? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many pictures do you have? MR. BEAUCHAMP: There are six pictures. MR. MIESZCAK: I'm only interested in the one on his property. MR. KELLY: I don't know if it's pertinent anymore, now that we've had the discussion. MR. MIESZCAK: I agree. MR. KELLY: I withdraw. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're withdrawing your motion? MR. KELLY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What we need to do now is find out whether this is in violation or not. Any motions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion a violation exhibits. Page 14 October 25, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second, Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So we found that the property is in violation with the trees. Now, what do we do? Do you have a proposal? MR. JONES: I do have a recommendation. Recommendation is 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 and abate all violations by: Must obtain any necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars a day will be imposed until abated. The prohibited exotic vegetation base/stump must be treated with a U.S. environmental protection agency approved herbicide, and a visual tracer dye shall be applied when the prohibited exotic vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains within blank days or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed. Finally, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a Page 15 October 25, 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: Let me have a comment from myself and then we'll let you have it. MR. MIESZCAK: I've got a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My first comment is I agree with you that 30 days is not sufficient time. And I would recommend to the board that we give an extended time. I know how expensive it is to remove those trees. I'm considering six months or more as time to do that. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now -- MR. MIESZCAK: Just for comment here. It was stated in 2003 that the lady knew about her violation, sold her property in 2012, and then the violations started. Well, you've got to remember, the buyer of that property might have been the one that stipulated that they wanted that taken care of before they got it. Because one of the problems in Florida is it goes with the land. So whoever buys the property is stuck with the violation. So it's good to clear up the violations before it gets that far. So I think this case is probably when the woman sold her property, the new buyer asked -- MR. BEAUCHAMP: Actually she is the owner. She built the home in 2003 and has owned it all the time. It's a family home. She put up the new residence on that property. She always knew they were there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Mr. Kelly? MR. MIESZCAK: Are we closed for public hearing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. KELLY: I just wanted to comment as well that the Page 16 October 25, 2012 ordinance, whether it's good or bad, unfortunately this is not the venue to decide on the ordinances themselves. We just have to rule on what's in writing and whether there is a violation or not. So while I sympathize with your situation of being targeted, maybe it is an ordinance that should have some leeway. Unfortunately it is an ordinance, and our only job is to really enforce those ordinances, so sorry. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Kelly, just to add to your point, I'd like to put up on the screen a copy of your ordinance and kind of refer to the underlying section. MR. KELLY: I'll take a stab at it then. I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation. And filling in the blanks for both sections of we'll do 180 days with a fine of$50 per day for each day thereafter. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we have a motion for 180 days. $80.57 is the cost. And a fine of$50 a day thereafter. Any other comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you have six months. If for some reason you can't remediate the problem within the six months, come back to the board, we will see if we can make any adjustments. Page 17 October 25, 2012 Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: One thing that's a little tricky on that. You might have heard it but not really understood exactly what they're saying. You can do some of this yourself, no problem. Make sure you get the correct herbicide and tracing dyes and put that over the stumps, because that is part of the provision. And the investigator will help you with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you very much. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is number three, Case CESD2011001603 5, Iris Labrie. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we give her the portable microphone and have her sit in the first row. MS. LABRIE: I'm comfortable standing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just pull the mic down and we'll be all set. MS. LABRIE: It feels good to be out of a wheelchair after that long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you get tired, let us know and we'll send Mr. Kelly over there to help you into your chair. (Ms. Labrie and Investigator Pulse were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 2007 Florida Building Code, Chapter 1, Section 110.1. Description of violation: Expired permit 2001041543, and no certificate of completion obtained for permit. Location/address where violation exists: 266 Sixth Street West, Bonita Springs, Florida, 34134. Folio 55901120005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Iris Labrie, P.O. Box 2365, Bonita Springs, Florida, 34133. Date violation first observed: November 9, 2011 . Page 18 October 25, 2012 Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: November 30th, 2011 . Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 20th, 2011. Date of reinspection: July 2nd, 2012. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ms. Pulse? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Good morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. Okay, I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs taken on November 9th, 2011. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those photographs? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show them to her. Do you have any problems with those photographs? MS. LABRIE: No. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: While on-site for a complaint for other code violations, I observed an addition to the main structure not completed, and during my research observed an expired permit for this Page 19 October 25, 2012 two-story framed garage/workshop addition. Reapplication on the expired permit was obtained February 3rd, 2012. A final AC inspection was done October 19th and passed. Final plumbing and electrical inspections completed October 23rd with a passing on the plumbing but the electrical had a partial pass. And permit remains with no C.O. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No C.O., okay. Good morning. MS. LABRIE: Good morning. It occurs to me the reason this building was even built for my husband's boat is our neighbor who comes in around the holidays only, maybe six weeks a year, a newspaper man was giving him a citation for a boat on the side of the property and offered to buy property. So I think that might be -- and it's not the first time someone wants to buy a property and then you end up with a citation of something. And -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You do have a permit that was pulled to construct that -- MS. LABRIE: My husband did, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the permit has expired? MS. LABRIE: It has. Because a drunk driver hit us and left me like this, rotated spine, and he died. So that being said, it was a much bigger project than I thought, because I thought he had a boat building and for his buddies upstairs to be working on children and music. So trying to finish this has been a bigger project than I expected. I don't know my neighbors, so I have no one else other than my brother in February. And Dee did get to meet him. But he's still a working man in New Hampshire, so I only have him for help. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You had hired a general contractor to -- MS. LABRIE: Yes, a general contractor did do what they did get Page 20 October 25, 2012 accomplished. But the biggest problem became the electrical. There is supposed to be an electrical meter in there. And when we came time to have that checked -- when we, this man -- he said that they could find no paperwork on it with Florida Power & Light. And I had to go through weeks of bookkeeping of my husband's old bookkeeping to finally find that the lady who had taken the order and actually taken my $5,300 for it six years ago, just before my husband died, could not find that paperwork. And she has retired. We only found a couple days ago Mr. Orlando has appointed Anna somebody to take over that, and they finally found paperwork where it has been paid. However, they're still investigating it, is pretty much the way I -- I forwarded it to Dee what this new lady said. So apparently the electric is all ready to go too. It's just the one who was there with my husband retired, and now Dee, do you have a copy of the new lady that's -- INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, what we need to do here at this point is to find whether it is a violation or it's not. And then we can go from there to find the remedy for the situation. MS. LABRIE: I am in the process. It was something I didn't even think I had to approach. I thought it was just a boat building with this big boat in it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How do you get the big boat out of that door, by the way? MS. LABRIE: My husband was a builder up north. He built the most beautiful teak double doors. Because it's at such an angle, it had to be legal. And we had a big expense, as I remember, him putting that up. But it was just so he wouldn't get any more citations on his Don Johnson boat that he drives around from here to Key West. Used to anyway. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: The boat draft is of the upper portion of the building. Page 21 October 25, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that's a roof I'm looking at there on the bottom. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: You're looking at the second floor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, now I see it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask a question. A permit was pulled in February? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: It was re-app'd in February. MR. LEFEBVRE: A re-app in February. And there was inspections done from February till just this month? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Just this month the inspections began. MS. LABRIE: They finalized what needed it to have. MR. LEFEBVRE: They just began or were they in process in February? MS. LABRIE: I had other code violations too. A pond that's there -- INVESTIGATOR PULSE: There were no inspections done for six months. The permit expired. A re-app'd permit expired and then it was extended three months. And there's been inspections just this month now. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if the permit has been extended for three months, the permit is still good. It's still active. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: It actually will be good now another six months since there has been passed inspections. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, that's what I was trying to get at. So we do not have an expired permit. So technically she has another six months to get the C.O., correct? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: As long as progress occurs, keeps occurring. MR. LEFEBVRE: But we're here for a no certificate of completion obtained for permit. But if the permit is active, she still is Page 22 October 25, 2012 within the time frame. So we really don't have a violation at this point. MS. LABRIE: But I've been known to disappear into home health care and can't live there -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Ma'am, can you hold on please? So if the permit is active, we do not have a violation. Am I seeing this right? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Well, the permit did expire for lack of any activity. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: So we want to have the process keep moving forward. MR. LEFEBVRE: But you just told me that it was extended for three months and then within that extension period there was an inspection started and then they have another six months. (Supervisor Mucha was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. The reason this case was prepared for a hearing is because the permit was expired at the time. And I think this just recently happened where she got the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would the county like to withdraw it then. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that no violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 23 October 25, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you understand what we just did? MS. LABRIE: You gave me the time that I need to find the right people to take care of this. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think what happened is the permit had expired, so you prepared it for code enforcement. And then just a couple of weeks ago she had started to get inspections again. So that's why you brought it in front of us; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: That is fair. MR. LEFEBVRE: But please, if you can be very diligent to trying to move it forward. Every time you get an inspection you have another six months. But it sounds like you're very close to having this done, so -- MS. LABRIE: It's almost done. It's just I couldn't get there even on crutches for six months at a time. So it's been very hard. MR. LEFEBVRE: Please understand that -- try to be diligent in trying to get this building done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if you have a problem getting it done on time, come back to us, come back to code enforcement and they'll work with you to see what can be done. MS. LABRIE: Thank you very much. I think I'll be better. By walking. MS. BAKER: Next case is number four, Case CELU20120008659, Jesus Jaime and Maria Martinez. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and Section 2.02.03, Page 24 October 25, 2012 prohibited use. Description of violation: Electrical improvements made to the principal structure and the underground storage container on the Estates zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: 3014 Everglades Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 41346400006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Jesus Jaime and Maria Martinez, 3014 Everglades Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: June 7th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: June 15th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 15th, 2012. Date of reinspection: August 24th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Patrick. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Five photographs taken June 7th, 2012; one photograph taken October 24th, 2012. MR. KELLY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Pick one. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 25 October 25, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I responded to a Collier County Sheriffs Office complaint about a marijuana grow house in the Golden Gate Estates. While on the property with the Sheriffs Department I observed several electrical improvements made to the principal structure and outside of the property and underground. I also observed a storage container that was put underground with unpermitted electrical improvements. I posted the property on June 15th, 2012. I have not had any contact with the property owners of the property. And still to this day the violation remains. That is looking down at the underground storage container. You can see some electrical improvements. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that one of those metal storage -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, like a shipping container. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. They buried it? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: They did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Entrepreneurs. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: This photograph shows the air handlers that they had down underground, some electricity. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Pool pump. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: And looking down, this is a better photo of the shipping container, storage container. The walls were actually bowing in, you can see on the left and right. So they started to put up concrete blocks on the left side of the structure. They were actually going to concrete this in to continue their operation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea why you can't contact the owners? They're not available, they're in jail? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I believe so, sir. They're not Page 26 October 25, 2012 available or jail, both. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion to find this in violation? MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. There is a violation. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Would you like to hear a recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, please. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$82.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or a 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 Page 27 October 25, 2012 the violation, the county may abate the violation, using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, anybody like to take -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a couple questions. Is this storage container secure? Is it open? I mean, is there like a hole that you can fall into? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The Sheriffs Department -- I have not been on the back of the property. It's inside a permitted garage underground, you can see it through the aerial photos. Since the first day I have not been on the back of the property to see if it's secured. The Sheriffs Department did tell me that they boarded it up. But since then, as you can see in one of my photographs, I have another case that will be coming next month to you guys for an unsecured structure. I do not know what's going on in the back of the property right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you show us the first picture that we looked at? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the property in foreclosure? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. There's a lis pendens filed in February of this year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the house. Was there a side garage on the left-hand side? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The structure in the back, the underground structure is in the back of the property that I cannot get to at this point. The front door, scoundrels or vandals, or whoever came into the area, they've broken down the front door that the Sheriffs Department boarded back up, and there are windows that are broken on the side of the structure that you guys will be hearing about next month. Page 28 October 25, 2012 And again, I don't know what the Sheriffs Department exactly did in the back. I just know that they boarded up the two openings. There was one picture of an opening of a hole that you could see, actually, two pictures of the holes. I don't know what's gone on since then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who took the pictures of the holes? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, you did, okay. Do you have any idea, is this a 1.14-acre parcel, is it a two-acre parcel? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: It's a 2.5-acre parcel. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's probably around 180 feet wide so you can't really see from the sides. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: There are unimproved properties on either side of the structures -- either side of the properties. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has anyone been in touch with the bank? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: At this point there has been a case forwarded. I cannot comment on that, though. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because you have a special department that handles -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I heard the recommendation. And $82.00 be paid within 30 days. And 45 days to correct -- can I see the order? The recommendation, I should say. Forty-five days of this hearing or $500 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, 45 days would bring us to -- MR. MIESZCAK: How about one month, next meeting? MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, I'll amend it to 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the second concurs? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion and a Page 29 October 25, 2012 second. Pay within 30 days, extended to -- fines start to accrue after our next meeting date, $500 a day. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments by the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Patrick. MS. BAKER: Next case will be under number five, old business, letter A, imposition for fines/liens, number one, Case CESD20100009135, Opera Naples, Inc. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. SMITH: Thomas Smith, Executive Director and CEO, Opera, Naples. (Mr. Smith and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, before we begin, the board had concerns over this property. It was a very large structure that had health and safety issues, illegal permitting on the interior. They have obtained a demolition permit. They have removed everything that would be a safety issue on the inside of this. The demo permit has not been C.O.'d, but all the work has been completed. They're just waiting on the C.O. in their inspections. I just checked with the investigator of record this morning and they're very close to Page 30 October 25, 2012 doing that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a case that if we would give an extension of 30 days it will just go away? MR. SMITH: Absolutely. I think we're at the point now where they're sweeping floors and just buttoning up the last for the cleanup of the demolition. We were hoping to have it done by this hearing, but unfortunately there was a slight delay. SUPERVISOR SNOW: They're very close. MR. SMITH: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we make a motion to extend for 30 days and they come within compliance, they don't have to be back in front of us? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's still a fine, though. SUPERVISOR SNOW: They would have to come back and appear before you and request abatement of the fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we extend this, don't we abate this fine? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Not yet. Not until it's abated. You understand what I'm saying, sir? MR. LEFEBVRE: But I thought if we extended it 30 days then we're abating the fines. MR. KELLY: What you're saying is to extend the original motion, the original order. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, that's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's right. So if we extend the original order another 30 days, they comply, everything goes away. So I make a motion to extend to our -- let's say our next meeting. Which would be? MS. RAWSON: November 29th, I think. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, I make a motion to extend to our next meeting, the 29th of November. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. Page 31 October 25, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and we have a second. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any questions from the county? I saw some quizzical looks over there. MS. FLAGG: I just wanted to make sure that you didn't say 30 days. Because you need to extend it back from the original compliance date so that they wouldn't incur any fines. But you clarified it in that motion so that will take care of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, we're amending the original order. MS. FLAGG: Right. Amending it to extend the compliance date to November. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Thank you for making that perfectly clear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you understand what we just did? Basically if you comply within -- by November 29th, you won't have to come in front of us again. You won't have any fines. MR. SMITH: That's what we wanted to hear. Thank you all for Page 32 October 25, 2012 the patience. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we withdrew it, then your fines would still be clicking until you finish, then you'd have to come back and ask for abatement. But otherwise, this way you don't have to ask for abatement. MR. SMITH: Terrific. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. MS. BAKER: Next case is number two under imposition of fines. Case CESD20110007803, Larry W. Fox. (Ms. Britton and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Investigator Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations -- Ms. Britton, if you'd like to talk first and request that extension? MS. BRITTON: Oh, I need to see if I can get an extension for maybe six months, if I could. This is my brother's property, and he passed away. And I have put in for probate to handle this. They won't let me do anything because it's not in my name, so my hands are kind of tied. I did pay for the permits, all that I could, but I didn't understand that whoever did this, I didn't understand I'm supposed to take out -- I didn't understand what I needed to do to comply with this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Okay, county? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The county has no objections. Mr. Fox started immediately the process of getting the permits, hiring a permitting specialist. The permits were approved and he passed away after that, just recently. So the county has no objections whatsoever for a time -- as a matter of fact, we did give one extension. This case was to go before the board our last visit here. We gave some time due to his death. And that's why we're back here today. We don't have an objection. MR. KELLY: Just real quick question. Do you have any plans Page 33 October 25, 2012 to sell the property or -- MS. BRITTON: I have no idea what we're going to do with it yet. We can't find out how much is owed on it because our name isn't on it, so we can't do anything. MR. KELLY: Do you know if it's in foreclosure or lis pendens or anything? MS. BRITTON: No, it's not. Well, no, because I keep telling them -- I tried to give them the money. They can't take the money because it's not in my name. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It's not in foreclosure. MS. BRITTON: I've tried to pay it and everything else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the shed in the back occupied or vacant? MS. BRITTON: Vacant. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It's vacant. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion just like what we did with the last case. What I'd like to do is go back to the original order and extend the original order and give you eight months, okay, from today to come into compliance. With the agreement that this property would not be sold without disclosure that there is a violation. Now, if they do public records search, they would see it. But you would have to -- you understand that you'd have to disclose or whoever is trustee would have to disclose. MS. BRITTON: Yeah. They didn't disclose to us, but yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: But what I'm saying is you would have to disclose or whoever is the trustee of the property, of the estate, would have to disclose. MS. BRITTON: Yes, certainly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Jean, is there any issue? I like what you said, Gerald, about disclosure. Any problem enforcing that in the order? Page 34 October 25, 2012 MS. RAWSON: Probably. Do you want that in the order? MR. KELLY: I mean, I think Gerald and I are on the same page. I don't want to see somebody else buy a code violation. MS. RAWSON: I'll put it in the order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It appears that -- MS. RAWSON: I don't think she's going to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's a fine on the property currently at $18,750. So should everything work out right with the courts and the probate and all the rest of that and you come back in compliance, in all likelihood, can't guarantee it, but that might be abated. So that would be a benefit not only to you but to anybody who purchased the property as well. MS. BRITTON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if I'm not mistaken, by what I just did, I extended eight months out and there would be no fines right now until that eight-month period, correct? I see heads shaking, so yes. So right now what I'm doing is basically erasing the fines, giving you eight more months to complete the probate, because it could take some time, giving you eight more months to complete the probate and so forth, but I don't want to see the house just sold in that time period. MS. BRITTON: No, no. Well, we can't sell it. The only thing they could do is repossess it. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at is let's say probate is completed in three months. You put the property on the market and it sells three months later. We'll never see you and then we'll see a new owner with this issue. I don't want that to occur. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jean, that will be a new order? MS. RAWSON: Yes, at the moment. And probably for the next several months the only person that would be allowed to sell it would be the probate court. But I'll put that in the order -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so we have -- MS. RAWSON: -- that it has to be disclosed. Page 35 October 25, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second by Mr. Kelly. Any questions on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BRITTON: Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: The next is number three under imposition, Case CESD20120004317, Pacifica Laurel Ridge, LLC, care of Pacifica Companies, LLC. (Investigator Musse was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Jonathan Musse, Code Enforcement. Past orders: On August 23rd, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation in reference of the ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the board OR 4832, Page 1938 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 24th, 2012. Fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period Page 36 October 25, 2012 between September 23rd, 2012 to September 24th, 2012, two days, for a total of$200. Order item number six, operational costs of$81.43 have been paid. Total amount to date, $200. County recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion to abate the fine? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case, number five under impositions, Case CESD20100006719, Leszek and Henryka Klum. (Mr. Peter Banski and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: Gentlemen, before we begin, let me offer an explanation. This is another one of those explanation cases. We're here today for an imposition of fines. However, if you remember about this case, this had to do with an encroachment upon a property that required a variance, which took an extended amount of time to get the variance. The respondent was in Poland for six months for a medical condition, and his -- I believe you're his nephew, Page 37 October 25, 2012 correct? MR. BANSKI: Yes. SUPERVISOR SNOW: -- was here maintaining the business. He didn't really have the authority to submit any request or anything on his uncle's behalf. He didn't have that. They just got the variance approved. They immediately got the permit. The permit is on review status. So they're going to have to do some things to the structure that was approved, but they need more time. They've requested me to present this to you. They were a little bit confused about the process. But they do have a permit that's in. It's under review right now from the county. They do have their variance. So all they're waiting on is the permit, then they're going to do the work. We're here today because the time eclipsed and they didn't request more time previously. That's why we're here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sounds like another Mr. Lefebvre motion. MR. KELLY: How much time total do you think it would take to get the permit and complete the work? MR. BANSKI: I believe from the time he gets the permits, two months for right now, for a demolition permit to remove the structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Lefebvre, would you like to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just like the previous cases, I'd like to extend the previous order, the original order, until our January meeting. So all the fines, whatever -- what's the dollar amount? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 7,400. MR. LEFEBVRE: So as long as everything is completed, the fines will be erased. MR. BANSKI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Page 38 October 25, 2012 MR. KELLY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second by Mr. Kelly. All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We thank the board. MR. BANSKI: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is number six under imposition, Case CESD20110005820, Eric T. Rodriguez. (Mr. Rodriguez and Investigator Musse were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Rodriguez, I see the operational costs have been paid, but the case is still not in compliance. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What do you have to say? MR. RODRIGUEZ: The last time I was here, I got everything ready to -- you guys issued the permit and everything, but I didn't have the money. My financial situation was really bad. But I was still working. The issue was ready, but the health department tell me I need to extend my drain field 500 square feet. And the day I was here talking to you guys, the very next day they will do the job. So the guy went and opened the hole in my house, he called me for like 2,500 bucks to do the extension. But when he opened the hole, he says there was nothing, that it was dirt, it was good. So I have to do the whole pipe, you know, all the pipe. All the Page 39 October 25, 2012 pass inspection. The health department went to and took pictures and everything. So I end up paying $8,000. Two months after I lose my job. I've been having like really hard times because I have a family. You know, trying to get a job here and there. I don't want, you know, to look like I don't want to comply with this. Because I got proof that I did have the permit. So I'm just looking for help. The last time I think I say if you guys give me until December I will use all my tax refunds, you know, to pay you. Because right now I don't have any money. And this is my situation. I'm looking for -- I'm not looking for, you know, somebody give me money. I will pay. I will pay with my money, you know, but I just need some time. I did everything. I submit every blueprint, everything was ready. But, you know, I cannot rob, because I'm going to be in jail tomorrow. I don't want to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is left to do? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Nothing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Money-wise what is left to do? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Nothing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just the inspections? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: The permit has expired. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was the last inspection? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: That I do not have. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because it's six months -- INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: It just recently expired within the last couple of weeks. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, I just wait for this day because I don't have any other choices. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you had this, the drain field redone, but you never had an inspection done on it? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, the health department did the inspection. Page 40 October 25, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: So from that time of inspection till now should be six months, correct? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: That's from the health department. Two separate permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: It doesn't matter -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, but when I went to the code enforcement, they told me that to complete the -- for the completion the health department send a letter to them that I have to do the drain field. And when I did the drain field, everything, they just told me that the permit would need to be checked by the code enforcement. The drain field again by the code enforcement once I pay. In the next 30 days, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: How far off is he? How much money? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: How much money as far as? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To redo the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, to redo the permit and get the final inspection or whatever needs to be done. How far away? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: That I couldn't say. It depends on -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: $3,000, almost $4,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To do what, to redo the permit? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, for the impact fees and everything. You know, everything was three thousand and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To get everything done and get your certificate of completion. MR. RODRIGUEZ: And I had the money before. But when the guy went and dig my house, my house is from, I don't know, '79 or -- I don't know. He say everything here is bad so I don't want to take a risk putting, you know, 500 square feet. And then when you guys come and check, I spend 2,500 bucks and I have to do everything again. So it will be a waste of time and money for me. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: However, he could possibly -- more than likely he has to reapply using the same plans of the previous Page 41 October 25, 2012 permit. So the price wouldn't be -- I would imagine the impact fees wouldn't have to be repaid if he's using the same plans as the original permit. MR. KELLY: Given the situation, is there anyone in CDES that he can go to and say listen, I just need to get an extension? Extensions are free. Is there a hardship that he can say make this retroactive? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: We have a gentleman there, Renald Paul, he can speak to, he can point to the right direction. MR. KELLY: That's right. If you could maybe help him walk through that, that would save at least a permit fee. And jail. Your turn. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll pass to somebody else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just ask: Do you think that everything can be done by January? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. December, I don't know, 31 December is the last day so I can do my taxes and pay. You know, otherwise -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Typically you won't get any refund from your taxes in January. MR. RODRIGUEZ: But at least I can borrow based on money that I'm going to get. Because, you know, I'm dealing with a lot of stuff, you know. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right, I'll make a motion. I make a motion that we extend the original order 150 days. MR. KELLY: From? MR. LEFEBVRE: Today. But from the original order. So no fines will start until 150 days from today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that's from September 19th. MR. KELLY: No, from today. The original order extending 150 days from today. Is that correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. KELLY: I'll second that. Page 42 October 25, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: He'll have five months from today. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I think it will do. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, that way if you file your taxes you won't have to go to someone that's going to basically steal from you, and that way you get your money back and you can go down and -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: I did some work. I work like two days a week, but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But let me tell you right now that originally when I looked at this I made my notes to impose the fine. I will not extend it again. I will not be sitting here and extending it again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second by Mr. Kelly. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case, number seven under imposition, Case CESD20120006530, Park East Development, Limited. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we hear this, this is the last one, we'll forego our normal break, if that's okay with you, Cherie'. (Investigator Jones was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. JONES: Good morning. How are you? Page 43 October 25, 2012 So Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.13(F). Location: 5100 27th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 36453120006. Description. Past orders: Failure to submit PUD monitoring report. On August 23rd, 2012 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See Order of the Board OR 4832, Page 1934 for more information. This property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of October 25th, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period September 23rd, 2012 through October 25th, 2012, which is 33 days, for the total of$3,300. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $3,380.86. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose. Seconded? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seconded by Mr. Lefebvre. All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 44 October 25, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, I think that's our last case, Jen. MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That brings us to reports. MS. FLAGG: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Diane. MS. FLAGG: What I'm going to do is give you actually two reports. Because since we last met we completed the fiscal year 2012. So I'm going to give you totals from fiscal year 2012 and then also the current report for the fiscal year we're in now. So for fiscal year 2012 there were 8,319 code cases opened. There were 27,663 property inspections for these cases. There were 4,531 cases closed with voluntary compliance. There were 122 meet and greet events, 22 community cleanup events, and 23 vacant home sweeps. There were 1,076 nuisance abatement projects, meaning that if the banks or the property owners didn't take care of the violations, then the county did and billed the property owner for it. There were 2,658,000 fines waived in FY '12. There were 7,462 lien searches requested. That is again the program that was worked out with Naples Area Board of Realtors. And of those 7,400 lien searches, 355 identified open code cases. So that prevented a buyer from buying a property without knowing that there were code violations on the property 355 times. There were 3,341 garage sale and recreational vehicle permits issued. And again, those are free permits we issue to the community, as well as we process all citations for Domestic Animal Services, Public Utilities, Parks and Rec., Sheriffs Office, and there were 5,536 citations processed. So that was for FY '12. We are now in, as of October 1st, into fiscal year '13. Just since October 14th, lenders, banks, have spent $14,543. There were 203 Page 45 October 25, 2012 code cases opened. There have been 528 property inspections. $14,900 in fines have been waived. There have been 112 property lien searches requested, six identified open code cases. There have been 69 free garage sale and recreational vehicle permits issued. I will also tell you just in terms of total abatement costs paid by banks and lenders, we've passed the three million mark. It's 3,014,000 banks and lenders have spent to abate code violations in Collier County. And they've abated 22,641 . And we also tracked the amount of fines that have been waived since we started the program in '09. And the amount of fines waived have been $8,268,800. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. If I could, if you could email me a copy of the reports, I share those with our partners in NABOR. I guess our next meeting is on November 29th. So I guess before the 29th is Thanksgiving, so have a good holiday and we'll see you here on the 29th. MS. FLAGG: I just have one more comment. Mr. Ken Kelly is moving to Lee County. So he will continue to serve on the board through December -- well, we don't have a December meeting, so he'll have one more meeting. And laws as they are written, he is required to resign from the board. So next meeting is his last with you all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I guess we'll have to have a party. MR. MIESZCAK: I have to say I'm going to miss the guy. He's a nice guy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll save the applause for our next meeting. MR. KELLY: Well, if I could make a comment, just a shout-out to my father and all his friends over at the rehab center. They are watching on TV right now. And work hard and try to get to that 120 percent range of motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we'll see you on the 29th. Page 46 October 25, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to adjourn. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10: 16 a.m. eIi i• ENFORCEMENT BOARD � 0 iia OBER ' /'UFMAN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected . Page 47