Loading...
CEB Minutes 11/29/2012 R November 29, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BO ' P1 it wi i r Naples, Florida, November 29, 2012 � V MAR 1 7013 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County ( d ...................y 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 Gerald Lefebvre met Kenneth Kelly District 3 James Lavinski District 3 District a Larry Mieszcak '° ` -- Lionel L'Esperance Ronald Doino, Jr. (Alternate) Chris Hudson (Alternate) Tony Marino (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Misc.Corres: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney to the Board Date: Item#: Page 1 copies to: CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: November 29,2012 Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman, Chair Lionel L' Esperance Gerald Lefebvre,Vice Chair Tony Marino Kenneth Kelly Ronald Doino Jr.,Alternate James Lavinski Chris Hudson,Alternate Larry Mieszcak 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— A. October 25,2012 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Re-Hearing 1. Kirk N. Sanders CESD20100007042 Motion for Extension of Time 1. Sean King Tr. CEVR20110002999 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CEOCC20120002338 OWNER: ROBERT E.&COLLEEN ROSSOMANDO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF IETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03 AND THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 126,ARTICLE IV, SECTION 126-111(b)OPERATING AN INN-TYPE BUSINESS ON THIS ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY.NO COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT OBTAINED FOR SUCH USE. FOLIO NO: 36661320009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4641 5th AVE NW NAPLES,FL 34119 2. CASE NO: CESD20120004933 OWNER: IRVIN M.&BEVERLY J.JACKSON 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)NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOR ENCLOSED BOTTOM FLOOR OF A STILT HOME AND ADDING LIVING SPACE WITH A BATHROOM AND AN ADDITION OF A GAME ROOM,DEN AND BATHROOM FOLIO NO: 40680520009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3210 4TH AVE.NE.NAPLES,FL 34120 3. CASE NO: CESD20120008679 OWNER: TERRY J.KRAMER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)PERMIT#2006014872 FOR A STEEL BUILDING AND PERMIT# 2004080864 FOR A POOL AND ELECTRIC HAVE BOTH EXPIRED WITHOUT ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/ OCCUPANCY FOLIO NO: 37014480003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 825 11TH ST. SW.NAPLES,FL 34117 4. CASE NO: CEVR20120008514 OWNER: TERRY J. KRAMER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.08(C)PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION FOLIO NO: 37014480003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 825 11TH ST. SW.NAPLES,FL 34117 5. CASE NO: CEPM20120007062 OWNER: FRANK MOOTISPAW OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-236 HOUSE SEVERLY DAMAGED BY FIRE FOLIO NO: 309560005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1180 SUGARBERRY ST.NAPLES,FL 34117 6. CASE NO: CELU20120011611 OWNER: OLD BARN,INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A)AND 2.02.03 PROHIBITED USE OF PROPERTY ZONED COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD) FOLIO NO: 23596009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2879 ORANGE BLOSSOM DR.NAPLES,FL 34109 7. CASE NO: CEPM20120011612 OWNER: OLD BARN,INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-234(3) BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS DEEMED STRUCTURE DANGEROUS FOLIO NO: 235960009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2879 ORANGE BLOSSOM DR.NAPLES,FL 34109 8. CASE NO: CESD20120006927 OWNER: JORGE L.MENDEZ 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)PERMITTED GARAGE TURNED INTO LIVING SPACE WITH A FULL BATH AND A KITCHEN WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 40935360008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3320 2ND AVE SE.NAPLES,FL 34117 9. CASE NO: CEPM20120013078 OWNER: JORGE L. MENDEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,ARTICLE VI, CHAPTER 22, SECTION 22-242 VACANT HOME WITH A SCREEN ENCLOSURE AND SWIMMING POOL HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY A FIRE AND HAS NO ROOF FOLIO NO: 40935360008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3320 2ND AVE SE.NAPLES,FL 34117 10. CASE NO: CESD20120006147 OWNER: JOSSE L.PEREZ(AKA JOSE M.PEREZ)&ISABEL PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AN UNPERMITTED WINDOW ADDED TO THE GARAGE ALONG WITH A LARGE HOLE IN THE GARAGE WALL WITH AN A/C UNIT WITHIN FOLIO NO: 37221090008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 110 WILSON BLVD. S.NAPLES,FL 34117 11. CASE NO: CESD20120012127 OWNER: GREGORY LYNN THOMPSON&MISTY LOU THOMPSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)A HISTORICALLY PERMITTED STEEL BUILDING IN THE REAR YARD NOW MISSING WALLS AND DOORS AND COMPLETELY ALTERED FROM IT'S ORIGINALLY PERMITTED STATE FOLIO NO: 36960760001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 181 23RD ST. SW.NAPLES,FL 34117 12. CASE NO: CESD20120008800 OWNER: MARIA A. LEIVA 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)CARPORT STRUCTURE WITH SLAB BUILT ON THE BACK OF THE ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY AND AN OVERHANG ADDED TO THE BACK WEST SIDE OF THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AND THE BACK OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE FOLIO NO: 41042120004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3525 12TH AVE. SE.NAPLES,FL 34117 13. CASE NO: CESD20120001674 OWNER: RAYMOND M.STONEBRIDGE&CHRISTINE M.STONEBRIDGE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,2010 EDITION, SECTION 105.1 SEVERAL UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES,DECKING, SCREENED LANAI,POOL/SPA AND WOODEN FENCING ON THE PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 37547360001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 211 14TH AVE.NW.NAPLES,FL 34120 14. CASE NO: CESD20120004200 OWNER: MILLARD&DENISE SHORETTE 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)2 SHEDS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 41280520000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2626 20TH AVE SE NAPLES,FL 34117 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20100003739 OWNER: COLLIER REALTY CORP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)COOLER/STORAGE CONSTRUCTED/ATTACHED TO BUILDING PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 63863840004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 101 NEW MARKET ROAD. E. IMMOKALEE,FL 34142 2. CASE NO: CESD20110003049 OWNER: THOMAS P. SMITH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)GARAGE CONVERSION,LARGE STRUCTURE AND FENCE ON THE PROPERTY WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 40622180009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2461 4TH AVE.NE.NAPLES, FL 34120 3. CASE NO: CENA20120006825 OWNER: GWENDOLYN GREEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181 LITTER CONSISTING OF,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,REFUSE,CLOTHES, BOXES,ASSORTED METALS,PLASTICS AND WOOD, TIRES,ETC. FOLIO NO: 41044640003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3675 10TH AVE. SE.NAPLES, FL 34117 4. CASE NO: CEVR20110014528 OWNER: LEON D. &JOAN MCCASKEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(c)PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BRAZILIAN PEPPER,AIR POTATO, DOWNY ROSE MYRTLE, WITHIN A 200' RADIUS OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 75460840000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1335 CENTER LANE NAPLES,FL 34110 5. CASE NO: CENA20120003516 OWNER: STEVEN J.MARTARANO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS DUMPED ON THE ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 39387240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 211 20TH STREET S.E.NAPLES,FL 34117 6. CASE NO: CESD20110017435 OWNER: ROOKERY BAY BUSINESS PARK 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: 732800002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS NAPLES,FL 7. CASE NO: CESD20120004188 OWNER: DOREEN BIGICA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOR GARAGE DOOR CONVERTED TO DOUBLE GLASS DOORS FOLIO NO: 45965880003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2391 19TH STREET S.W.NAPLES,FL 34117 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- January 24,2013 11. ADJOURN November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak at 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. And let's start out with the roll call. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ronald Doino, Jr.? MR. DOINO: Here. Page 2 November 29, 2012 MS. BAKER: And Mr. Tony Marino has an excused absence for today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And that means that Ron Doino will be the member of the board for voting purposes for this meeting. Now, do we have any agenda changes, I say facetiously? MS. BAKER: Under No. 4, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, we have one addition. This will be No. 2 under extension of time, Collier Realty Corps, CESD20100003739, and that's No. 1 from impositions. And then we have one addition, which will be for a motion for continuance, and this is No. 7 from hearings, Old Barn, Incorporated, CEPM20120011612. Under Letter B, stipulations, we have three stipulations. The first will be No. 13 from hearings, Raymond M. Stonebridge and Christine M. Stonebridge, Case CESD20120001674. The second will be No. 8 from hearings, Jorge L. Mendez, Case CESD20120006927. The third will be No. 9 from hearings, Jorge L. Mendez, Case CEPM20120013078. Under Letter C, hearings, No. 2, Case CESD20120004933, Irvan M. and Beverly J. Jackson, has been withdrawn. Number 5, Case CEPM20120007062, Frank Mootispaw, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CELU20120011611, Old Barn, Incorporated, has been withdrawn. Number 12, Case CESD20120008800, Maria A. Leiva has been withdrawn. Under No. 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 2, Case CESD20110003049, Thomas P. Smith, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes I have. Page 3 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion to accept the agenda as modified? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the agenda as modified. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Let's see. We go to the approval of the minutes. Anybody have any changes from the minutes from October 25th? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Which brings us to public hearings. Jen? MS. BAKER: The first will be under motions, motion for rehearing. Kirk N. Sanders, Case CESD20100007042. Page 4 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Since we have two attorneys, we probably have no swearing in to do. MR. WRIGHT: I'm not aware of any witnesses. MR. PERLOW: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we begin now. MR. PERLOW: My name is Jeffry Perlow. I represent Kirk Sanders. In the notice of violation that was issued in this matter, as well as the findings of fact, specifically the findings of fact of July 26, 2012, it states, and I'm quoting, approximately 12 mobile homes were installed with several additions added to the mobile homes consisting of carports, screen porches, roof-overs, and living space below flood level with electrical and plumbing without first obtaining all required building permits. Firstly, in looking at this, this is very vague. You cannot tell from looking at this what specific carports, units we're talking about. If the ordinary person looks at this -- if Mr. Sanders were responsible -- and I'll argue that he is not -- but if he were, how would he know exactly which units to repair? You simply cannot tell by looking at this. It's too vague. With respect to the order of the board, the order references the Land Development Code statutes regarding alterations and improvements. That's understandable. That's where the alleged violations occur. It also references 2.02.03, which states any use or structure not specifically identified in a zoning district as a permitted use, conditional use, or accessory use shall be prohibited in such zoning district. Again, you can't tell from looking at this order exactly how he violates this particular provision. The premises in question has been a park since 1955. Mr. Sanders has all necessary permits from the Department of Health. Page 5 November 29, 2012 He's inspected regularly. So what is this saying? Again, you can't tell by looking at this document. The real problem here is -- and, again, according to the notice of violation, it states any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, et cetera, shall first make application to the building official. It was not Mr. Sanders who intended to make these alterations. He does not own all of these units. A new statute was enacted in June of 2011 -- three statutes, brand new -- and they state -- 723.022, it reviews the mobile home park owner's general obligations. That's the park owner. He's got to maintain common areas, buildings, provide access, maintain utility connections, that type of thing. Those are his responsibilities. Under 723.023 the mobile home owner has to make sure that his premises are in -- is in compliance with local code. Under 723.024 -- and this is the key statute that was enacted in 2011. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or of any local law, ordinance, or code -- and I'm quoting the statute -- if the unit of local government finds that a violation of a local code or ordinance has occurred, the unit of local government shall cite the responsible party for the violation and enforce the citation under its local code and ordinance enforcement authority. It also states, in number two, a lien, penalty, fine, or other administrative or civil proceeding may not be brought against a mobile home owner or mobile home for any duty or responsibility of the mobile home park owner or against the mobile home park owner or mobile home park for any duty or responsibility of the mobile home owner. So if it was the mobile home owner that intended to make the alteration, you cannot cite or fine the mobile home park owner. It's clear, the statute is clear. It was enacted in -- June 2nd of 2011 this statute came into effect. There are numerous commentaries online Page 6 November 29, 2012 about this statute. I think one of them says, so, for example, if a mobile home owner is not complying with local codes and ordinances and violating a local building code with an attachment built onto their unit, instead of the city coming in and fining the mobile home park owner, the city would now fine the owner of the mobile home. The noncomplying mobile home owner will be responsible for the fines, not the park owner. And I think this was skipped over for some reason at the hearing on this matter. This matter should not be before this board against Kirk Sanders as the mobile home park owner. It should be against the mobile home owners. It was brought up. It was not really addressed. There was no testimony presented that Mr. Sanders owned all of these mobile homes. Why was the violation brought against him? Why was he fined? Respectfully, this body did not have the authority to fine him at that time as the mobile home park owner unless you found for some reason that he was the party that intended to make the alterations to these particular units. He doesn't even have the right to alter somebody else's unit. So in that respect, if you find that there's been a violation, if someone hasn't filed for the appropriate permit, you have to cite the mobile home owner. That's clear in this new set of statutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question -- MR. PERLOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and that is, does the respondent own any of the units there? MR. PERLOW: I believe he owns one of them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Of the respondent? Page 7 November 29, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: I'm just curious about something. Of the mobile units that are there, I understand -- is there leases on each one of these held by -- MR. PERLOW: I think most of them, frankly, are month to month. There might be one or two leases, but I don't think so. I think some of the units have been there for an extended period of time. Obviously, some longer than others. There may be one or two leases. I don't want to say before this board that there are definitely leases. I think it's mainly a month-to-month situation. MR. MIESZCAK: See, what I don't understand is somebody moves in, lives there for a month or two or a year, whatever, and does all these improvements and then just drives away, takes off, and who takes care of this? Who's responsible for cleaning this place up? MR. PERLOW: Well, in that situation -- I don't know if that's happening. I don't know if any testimony came in that that was happening. But if that does happen, it's a problem, because then you have an abandoned property and, technically, someone is supposed to file appropriate procedures, I suppose, before somebody else moves in. But I don't know if that's done. But there are people there that own these homes and have, throughout the years, put attachments on these homes. If they've abandoned that property, does code enforcement have a right to go against the subsequent owner who's now living there who's taken over, effectively, the ownership of that property and fine them? I suppose it does, because they're now the de facto owner if nothing else. They're on the premises. So if they're on the premises and a subsequent owner -- and there's a violation, I suppose you'd have to go after that subsequent owner. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? MR. PERLOW: That's not Mr. Sanders. He's the park owner. MR. MIESZCAK: Let me just say one more thing, and I'll be Page 8 November 29, 2012 done. It just seems to me how code enforcement can go and do their job, and yet you're dealing with people that are there or not there; where are they? There's no way to put a lien on this property if it is violation, because you really don't have an owner. You have somebody that has personal property on somebody else's property. That's exactly what that is, I see. That's a personal property thing on somebody else's property. So if he can leave and leave it there, he's gone. MR. PERLOW: It may be a practical problem, but the statute says you can't fine the mobile home park owner for that problem. You have to fine the responsible party who attached the attachment, if you will, without a requisite permit. It's not appropriate to fine the mobile home park owner for that violation if he didn't intend, as the notice of violation states, and as the Land Development Code states, if he did not intend to make the alterations. Totally improper. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we hear from the county next. MR. WRIGHT: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm Jeff Wright, assistant county attorney. And this case might sound familiar to you because you've heard it twice. And Mr. Perlow is asking for a third hearing. This has literally been heard twice. And in my experience, I've never seen this board hear the same issue three times. A lot of issues that he's presented are based on statutory law. You don't have jurisdiction, respectfully, to base your decision on those arguments. Those are great arguments for appeal. They've been in the appellate forum already once. And by agreement we came back to hear it again, and we thought that would be a great way to resolve it, reach some middle ground. But we heard it again, the board found Page 9 November 29, 2012 them in violation, and now they're asking for a third bite at the apple. So, fundamentally, I think it's precedent setting that this board would ever hear something three times. And I think that that alone would be enough for you to deny this request. Now, getting into the substance of his arguments, we tried to sit down with Mr. Perlow and Mr. Sanders to determine who owns these units because, according to the deed, Mr. Sanders owns these units. And I have the deed here. And it reads, together with all the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. We have -- technically, these are tenements. They're structures on the property. And like he said, they've been there for a long time. When Mr. Sanders took title to this property, he took title to all of them. Now, if you were to grant a rehearing, we would ask Mr. Sanders -- we'll subpoena information relating to who owns these units. Now, we've already heard he owns at least some of them. We don't know which ones he owns. He refuses to tell us. But the fact that he owns some of them, that alone is enough to uphold your order. He's basically saying I'm the mobile home park owner. I don't own these mobile homes. Well, his deed says he does. He hasn't provided anything to suggest that he doesn't own any of the units on the property. So we're stuck with the facts that we have, and the facts are he owns the property and he owns the structures, and there's nothing to controvert that. Now, there's a standard for rehearing, and it involves an error of ruling -- on a ruling of law or that you overlooked evidence that was important to your decision. I haven't heard that yet. The main argument that he's making is that our approach is inconsistent with the statute. And, again, you don't have jurisdiction to base your decision on that. Page 10 November 29, 2012 So for those reasons, A, a third bite at the apple and, B, he hasn't met the standard for a rehearing, I ask that you deny this request. MR. PERLOW: And if I could just respond to that. To ask you not to consider statutory rules and regulations is ridiculous. Of course, you have to consider that in reaching your decision. To say just ignore the statute, is that what's being asked here? You can't ignore the statute. It's a new statute. And it says he can't be fined if he doesn't own the mobile homes. The deed talks about tenements and attachments. Everybody knows in this case that Mr. Sanders does not own all of these mobile homes. That testimony came in last time. It's a standard deed that says whatever was transferred to somebody else is now transferred to you, et cetera. There's no question that he doesn't own all of these properties. I'm not asking you, necessarily, for a third hearing. What I'm saying to you is, respectfully, this doesn't belong before the board. On your own motion, this should be dismissed. He doesn't own these mobile homes. They know he doesn't own all of the mobile homes. We had meetings on this, yes, we did, and those meetings were to determine what correction should be made. But at all times during those meetings we took the position that he doesn't own all of these units. They know he only owns one of them. You found that there are 12 of them that are in violation. You know he doesn't own all 12, but you want him to fix units he doesn't own. That's clearly against the statute. And he's asking you not to consider the statute. How can you not consider statutory regulation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a couple questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I'd like to address the three main arguments. The first one that you had mentioned was how vague the original order Page 11 November 29, 2012 was when it addressed exactly what the violations were. Although the order seems to be all-encompassing by speaking indirectly to individual comports and alterations and such, the testimony throughout the hearing showed the individual units, and I think that would help prove which ones have the violations. Number two, the argument was the new statute that came into effect. And I can certainly appreciate the -- perhaps there's some kind of discord between the new statute and the ordinance and the way we govern or the way our rules and regulations are created to enforce the ordinances of Collier County but, unfortunately, at this board level all we have is our own rules and regulations and the ordinances which they pertain to. So I understand that it's not necessarily the job of the lower courts or at least quasijudicial boards to take up matters of jurisdiction or of law issues, and that's why they have appellate courts and circuit courts and so forth, all the way up to the Supreme Court, for those type of jurisdictions. But, specifically, my point to the issue is, we are required to go after the property owner. If the mobile homes are not deeded, do not have an individual folio number, are not subsectioned from the main property, there's no way that our ordinances or our rules or our liens or our fines can go after anything. There's nothing tangible to attach them to, because we can't go after property value. We can't go after a motor vehicle just because it's parked somewhere. It's the land that it's on that we attached all of our fines and our liens to. So if they are not individually owned, the property itself that's underneath the homes that have the violations, if they're not individually owned, they're owned by Mr. Sanders or by the company, well, then that's what we have to cite. And I would agree with Mr. Wright that we would deny the rehearing. MR. PERLOW: The statute is very clear. Under 723.024 it states -- again, I stated this before -- notwithstanding any provision of Page 12 November 29, 2012 this chapter or of any local law, ordinance, or code, it doesn't matter what your local laws, ordinance, or codes are according to this statute. It says very explicitly, it doesn't matter what your local ordinances are. You can't fine Mr. Sanders as the mobile home park owner for mobile homes that he is not altering, that he doesn't own. It says, very specifically, you have to go after the mobile home owner. There's no question about that. There may be an inconvenience factor here, I understand that. But what the statute says, the statute says. And it says, you can't override this statute on a local level. And I think you have to consider, in rendering your decisions, what the statutes -- why render a decision that's directly in contradiction to a state statute? MR. KELLY: Well, in that case there's a procedural disconnect, because all of our procedures go against the property owner. If there's a state ordinance that says -- or state law that says that we can't, then there's a procedural disconnect. We have our procedures, and maybe they need to change and be updated because of this new law, but until they are, this is what we have to do. MR. PERLOW: But it says you can't do that. The law says -- MR. KELLY: And that's why we have appellate courts. MR. PERLOW: No. You have -- you try to render the right decision at this level so it doesn't have to be appealed. MR. KELLY: The right decision -- MR. PERLOW: You don't render any decision even though it may be wrong, even though you see it's wrong, and have the appellate court overturn it. That's not necessary if you see the situation here. MR. KELLY: In my opinion, we are ruling based on the laws and ordinances that we have under our jurisdiction as a Collier County quasijudicial board. MR. PERLOW: Regardless of what the state statutes states? MR. KELLY: Regardless. And I have not seen that either. MR. PERLOW: It's one of my attachments. It's Exhibit E in my Page 13 November 29, 2012 attachment packet. I have attached the statutes as Exhibits C, D, and E, and that particular statute is Exhibit E. MR. MIESZCAK: I've read it four times. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess the question I have is, these units that are there, how long have they been there and how many people have moved into these units and moved out? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure we should be rehearing the case at this point. MR. LEFEBVRE: But what I'm trying to get at is, basically, if these units have been there for several years, and people move in and move out, if I was an owner of a mobile home park and a tenant moved out, I would want to get rid of that unit so someone else could move in in their own unit. He's, literally -- from what I see, he's taken ownership of these if they're sitting there and someone moves out and then someone else moves in. MR. PERLOW: Some of the people have been there, literally, for years. Some people have been there longer than others. But when you take over ownership of that particular unit, you're, in effect, taking ownership of that unit. If you're living with the attachment in place or the carport in place, that now becomes your attachment and your carport. And I don't know the local rule or ordinance, but if you're living in it, does that mean you're responsible for it? I don't know that. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I have a problem with is if someone moves out and then someone else moves in, there should be some kind of transfer of ownership from the previous person that lived there to the new person. If that document can't be provided, then, literally, the mobile home park owner has taken ownership of that property. MR. PERLOW: I don't think that's necessarily the case. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I think we're rehearing the case at this point. Page 14 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, yes. We're not going to rehear the case, and I think maybe we're going a little too far into it. I'd ask Jean, we have two things that can happen. If we -- if we were to agree with the respondent, then we would wind up rehearing the case, I'm sure. If not, that would be the end at this point. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. And in order to make your decision as to whether to rehear it, remember that you have to decide whether you made a decision that was contrary to the evidence or contrary to the law. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. And I believe that if we -- from my great ability to remember, the whole issue at that time was if you have this park and you have units there, who's responsible for the units. That was kind of like the basic case back then. So any other questions relative to rehearing this particular case from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion deny. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to deny and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. PERLOW: Thank you. Page 15 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: Okay. Moving on to motion for extension of time. The first is Sean King Trust, Case CEVR20110002999. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. ANDREW KELLY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see -- I've read through this -- that they're going to be out of town and they need, looks like, 180 days to come into compliance. How say the county? ANDREW KELLY: Yes, sir, we agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you agree that 180 days would be okay to grant? ANDREW KELLY: We hope that will get us into the rainy season so it will have a success. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the extension of time 180 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 16 November 29, 2012 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. ANDREW KELLY: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next is extension of time for Collier Realty Corporation, CESD20100003739. And this was No. 1 from impositions. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. A familiar face. MR. FREEMAN: Good morning. How you doing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FREEMAN: Right now I want to just address the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you identified yourself? MR. FREEMAN: I'm sorry. My name is Ernest Freeman. I'm a general contractor representing the owner of 101 New Market Road in Immokalee, Jerry Doran - Depema (phonetic) Group, which is a gas station located there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FREEMAN: And I want to come and address the board today because we are requesting an additional 60-day extension. The board graciously granted us an extension of time before, but the owner really encountered some real, I want to say, problems. He had some criminal situations where he was robbed on a couple occasions -- and I supplied them with the police reports -- and he couldn't purchase the plans and the site improvement plans that were needed to get this case abated. Now he's been able to acquire the funding, and we were just asking for an additional 60 days to get this case abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the only progress that's been made is that you now have the necessary paperwork to start the Page 17 November 29, 2012 job? MR. FREEMAN: Exactly, and that's what is needed to get the permits and everything else to go and get in this case abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the county? MS. PEREZ: They did also have a pre-application meeting for the SIP, so they know what they need in order to make all those submittals. So we leave it up to the board's discretion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sixty days, you think, would be sufficient time to resolve this situation? MR. FREEMAN: I hope. Sometimes in the county it takes a little longer than -- you know, for them to -- if there's any, I guess, corrections or things that sometimes can pop up that are requested. I don't know what the board would be able to grant if it's a few more days other than the 60. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I have no problem with 90 days. I'll make a motion for a 90-day extension. MR. L'ESPERANCE: 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 18 November 29, 2012 MR. FREEMAN: Thank the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you run into trouble on the 89th day, don't call us. Come back sooner. MR. FREEMAN: Okay, thank you. MS. PEREZ: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case is under motion for continuance, and this is No. 7 from hearings, Old Barn, Incorporated, Case CEPM20120011612. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. ATHEY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see we have a fire-damage case here. MR. ATHEY: It's -- the barn is in disrepair, not a fire damage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought I had read that on -- maybe it was a previous case that's been withdrawn. Okay. Doesn't matter. MR. ATHEY: For the record, Stephen Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. LEFEBVRE: This property's going through a hearing for rezoning, correct? MR. ATHEY: The property is zoned CPUD currently. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. ATHEY: And has been for quite some time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In the -- on the 2 under the paperwork here it says, damage by fire. That's why I -- MR. ATHEY: That must be a mistake. I'm not aware of any fire that's happened on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's because I'm in the wrong case. MR. MIESZCAK: Two barns. Page 19 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two barns, yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Two barns. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the Old Barn. No fire on this one. MR. ATHEY: No fire. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: So the county doesn't have any issue with the continuance? MR. ATHEY: County has no objection to continuing it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And this is a 60-day request. Since we're not meeting in December -- MR. ATHEY: The January meeting, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- this will be to the January meeting, okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KELLY: I make a motion to extend till the January meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 20 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. ATHEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: And, Mr. Chairman, we do have one more stipulation to add, and this is No. 14 from hearings, Millard and Denise Shorette, Case CESD20120004200. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That will be Stip No. 4? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: So the first stipulation will be No. 13, Raymond M. Stonebridge and Christine M. Stonebridge, CESD20120001674. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Chris. MR. AMBACH: For the record, Christopher Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 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; 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: Okay. It was just brought to my Page 21 November 29, 2012 attention we needed to modify the agenda for the addition of that stipulation. So I'm looking for a motion to do that. MR. KELLY: We don't have to amend it until just before we take it or after this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll wait then. Okay. Good morning. MS. STONEBRIDGE: Good morning. Christine M. Stonebridge on behalf of myself and my husband, Raymond M. Stonebridge. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see that you've agreed to the stipulation. MS. STONEBRIDGE: Yes, we have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any problem meeting the time? MS. STONEBRIDGE: I don't believe so. We've got permit applications to cover the structures, and we're just going through the process of getting those through and approved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motion from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve the stipulation. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 22 November 29, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. STONEBRIDGE: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm going to take a motion now to add the stipulation. MR. KELLY: Motion to amend the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to add that stipulation. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next stipulation is No. 8 from hearings, Jorge L. Mendez, Case CESD20120006927. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Code Enforcement Investigator. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$81.15 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 permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of$150 Page 23 November 29, 2012 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: Thank you. Good morning. MR. MENDEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with the time frames on this stipulation? MR. MENDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: So one question. It's not occupied, right? MR. MENDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you state your name for the record? MR. MENDEZ: Yeah, Jorge Mendez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion from the board? MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Move that we accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 24 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next stipulation is No. 9, Case CEPM20120013078, Jorge L. Mendez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You look very familiar. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by, A, obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy and either restore the structure to a permitted condition consistent with the Collier County property maintenance code or remove the structure and the pool with screen enclosure within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed -- $150 will be imposed for each day the violation continues; B, alternatively, obtain a Collier County boarding certificate and board the structure within 14 days of this hearing; and, C, obtain all required Collier County building permits -- demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy and either restore the structure to a permitted condition consistent with the Collier County property maintenance code or remove the structure with pool and screen enclosure within 180 days of the boarding certificate issuance, or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation Page 25 November 29, 2012 continues; 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: So if I understand correctly, there are going to be two inspections, one after the pool is boarded and then once everything is completed? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. He's also going to apply for the permit. And I think Mr. Mendez can speak on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MENDEZ: Yeah. I submit the permit. I tried to do it that way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have the permit already for the boarding of the pool? MR. MENDEZ: Yeah. I got it, the blueprint and everything, but I not submit the permit because I got a permit before, and I need to cancel that one and submit a new one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You don't think you'd have any problem boarding the pool up in 14 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it boarding? MR. MENDEZ: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. Is it boarding the pool or -- MR. BALDWIN: Sir, he doesn't have a permit for the house yet. It's a boarding certificate for the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: For the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. Page 26 November 29, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: So if he does decide to move forward and repair the house, then he still will have to board it up first, is that -- MR. BALDWIN: Yes, he'll have to obtain a boarding certificate from the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: So he'll have to board it up first and then do his work and -- MR. BALDWIN: I'm sorry. If he does the first part of A, the stipulation, he does not need to do that. If he doesn't, he needs to get a boarding certificate and then follow through from the 180 days from the boarding -- the day of the issuance of the boarding certificate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Does the swimming pool present any type of danger? MR. BALDWIN: I have not seen -- been able to see the swimming pool, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the swimming pool full of water? MR. MENDEZ: The swimming pool, there's -- got a thing (sic), you know, around the swim, so -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: There's a fence around it? MR. MENDEZ: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. It says he has 180 days to demolish or get a certificate of occupancy from today, but he only has 14 days from today to get the boarding certificate. So my question is, if he starts the process of fixing the place, does he not have to get a boarding permit? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So it's either/or within 14 days. He has to start either the process of getting the place back -- livable, I guess. I'm just a little confused on this. MR. BALDWIN: It is a little wordy. Excuse me. MR. KELLY: I understand that Letter B would be the alternative to Letter A. MR. LEFEBVRE: But the dates -- Page 27 November 29, 2012 MR. KELLY: No. I think if he's going to move forward with A, then he has 180 days to not only move forward with it, to actually get the work done. If not, then he has to decide now and go with B, which is to get a boarding certificate. MR. LEFEBVRE: But how could you start the penalty for the 14 days if you're working on the other -- it -- MR. KELLY: I think what's going to happen is if he doesn't submit to start A within 14 days, then B kicks in, and those fines will start coming in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that -- MR. KELLY: I think to make it easier -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just ask, what do you intend to do? MR. MENDEZ: Submit the permit and start -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're going to complete the house? MR. MENDEZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So then the boarding is probably not required if he is going to go forward and finish the structure? Yes, sir. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The boarding section was more for his benefit in case he was going to demolish it; we would give him a chance to board it up and then have some time to demolish it at that point. But if he is going to bring the structure back up -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we strike B. MR. LETOURNEAU: We can strike that out of the whole thing and just go with that part. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: We could strike everything -- B and C Page 28 November 29, 2012 out of the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it will have to be signed and come back. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. We can do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand what we're -- we're going to take the boarding out and the words that pertain to boarding, and then it will be easier for you. MR. MENDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And then you'll sign it, and they'll bring it back, and we'll approve it. MR. MENDEZ: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before we do that -- I know we're not hearing the case, but is there any way to access this property currently? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: For -- I'm sorry. Will he let us on the property, yes, or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No. I mean, access it as in, like, if someone wants to get into the -- MR. BALDWIN: No, it's completely fenced in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay, okay. Because what I don't want to do is have him say, yeah, I want to fix it, and then six months down the road not being boarded up and there be a safety issue. But if it's fenced in, it's secured, then -- MR. BALDWIN: The complete property is fenced in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you'll take that back, strike those two paragraphs, and bring it back to the board? MR. LETOURNEAU: We will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Page 29 November 29, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Just one question. That garage, the finished garage was there, and then you have the house, right? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: So for 180 days, he's not going to live in that garage? You think so? MR. BALDWIN: No. He lives at another property in Collier County. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation is No. 14, Millard and Denise Shorette, Case CESD20120004200. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. 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 permit, inspections, and 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; 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 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. If you would identify yourself for the court stenographer. MS. SHORETTE: Denise Shorette. MR. SHORETTE: And Joey Shorette. Page 30 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, you've heard the stipulation, you've signed the stipulation. This involves two sheds. And 120 days, you feel, will be sufficient to get this all done? MS. SHORETTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you going to demolish them, or are you going to permit them? MS. SHORETTE: One is already demolished, and the other one I put my paperwork in, and I'm just waiting for the permit. I moved it. MR. BALDWIN: The first permit just -- it should be going in the computer system today that it was CO'ed for the demolition permit. The permit for the second shed they have submitted, and it was just rejected, and they have the stuff to bring it back, the revisions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second, Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 31 November 29, 2012 Thank you. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. MS. SHORETTE: Thank you. MR. SHORETTE: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Do we need to go back now? MS. BAKER: We do need to go back to Mendez, but he is getting copies, I believe, so he'll be right back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We could take a 30-second break, but we'll wait till they get back. The next case is going to be -- MR. KELLY: Hearings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're got to check the status of the paragraph striking. For those at home, Mr. Kelly would like me to keep on going. Would you like to let us know what the next case is, or do you want to stall a little bit until they come back in? MS. BAKER: The next case may be kind of lengthy so -- MR. MIESZCAK: There they are. MS. BAKER: They're actually back. MR. MIESZCAK: Home free. MR. BALDWIN: Sorry about that. MR. LETOURNEAU: I apologize. We're just getting copies of this. Okay. As you can see, we just kept with the original, just crossed off the B and C part of the stipulation and had Mr. Mendez initial and date the corrections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to initial it also from the county? MS. BAKER: Do you have the original? That's not the original. Colleen has it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make the motion to accept the stipulated agreement. Page 32 November 29, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. BAKER: All right. Moving on to Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Case CEOCC20120002338, Robert E. and Colleen Rossomando. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, again -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WRIGHT: -- Mr. Chairman, board members. Again, my name's Jeff Wright. I'm here on behalf of the county. We're bringing this case. So if it's okay with you, Mr. Chair, I'll start. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. BAKER: Hold on, Jeff. I've got to read this. I have to read through this first. This is in reference to violation of ordinances Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 and the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 126, Article IV, Section 126-111, Subsection B. Description of violation: Operating an inn-type business on this Estates zoned property. No Collier County business tax receipt Page 33 November 29, 2012 obtained for such use. Location/address where violation exists: 4641 5th Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34119; Folio 36661320009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Robert E. and Colleen Rossomando, 4641 5th Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: February 15, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 9, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 9, 2012. Date of reinspection: August 13, 2012. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, again. MR. PERLOW: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WRIGHT: Again, I'm Jeff Wright for the county. The violation here is operating an inn-type lodging business in Estates zoning district, which is a prohibited use. They turned their house into a hotel. You may recall -- this case has some unique history. On June 28th the board met over at Horseshoe Drive, and the hearing was held. And by a 4-3 vote, their use was upheld as lawful by this board. We went back and reviewed the file and determined that -- it's very rare for us to do that, but we determined that a rehearing request was appropriate. We felt that the decisions would establish precedent that was inconsistent with our Comp Plan and our LDC. So we came back to the board and requested a rehearing in August, and thankfully the vote was to rehear the matter. So here we are. Our argument, basically, is that the respondents have plainly admitted that they're using and advertising their single-family residence for transient rentals; essentially a hotel, inn, bed and Page 34 November 29, 2012 breakfast, whatever you want to call it, transient rentals. This type of use is not allowed in the Estates zoning district, and this property is located in the Estates zoning district. This type of commercial use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And because it's not a permitted use, it's a prohibited use under Section 2.02.03 of the LDC. And I'm going to put that section up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen that exhibit? MR. WRIGHT: I do have an extra copy for him. I could run it by him. Hopefully he won't object. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But I don't know if he's seen it. MR. PERLOW: Jeffrey Perlow for Mr. and Mrs. Rossomando. I have not seen any exhibits. I don't think I have an objection to that particular exhibit. I would like to see all the exhibits now that are going to be entered, if we could. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: We haven't entered them into evidence yet either, so I think the one he wants to show is actually part of the original hearing packet. MR. PERLOW: Again, I don't know I have an objection to a statute or an ordinance being admitted. I would ask that the board disregard any statements from counsel that the Rossomandos have turned their house into a hotel. I think that's why we're here for testimony. So if we could hear some testimony on that issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to that? MR. PERLOW: No, of course not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You may -- we have it as part of our package, actually. I just want to make sure the respondent had seen that. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. And rather than put it on the overhead, I just will read it into the record, if that's acceptable. Page 35 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's fine. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. The violation that they are accused of is 2.02.03 of the LDC, entitled "Prohibited Uses." Any use or structure not specifically identified in the zoning district as a permitted use, conditional use, or accessory use shall be prohibited in that zoning district. That's what that section of the LDC says. And -- now, as far as -- I have another exhibit that I'd like to introduce. I will show it to Mr. Perlow first. MR. PERLOW: No objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that part of our package as well? MR. WRIGHT: I don't believe it is. And I'd like to enter it into evidence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion we accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept that exhibit. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the county going to have more exhibits? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we just accept them all that one time? Page 36 November 29, 2012 That might be easier. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can that be focused a little bit? MR. MIESZCAK: How about turned over? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Either my eyesight is going or it's out of focus or both. MR. PERLOW: We don't have any objection to the exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept all those exhibits in hand. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continue. MR. WRIGHT: The first exhibit that we'd like to present, which he has not objected to, is Exhibit Al, is how I've marked it, and it basically is an advertisement which was printed up last night for this house offered as an inn with daily rentals. You can see on the exhibit that there's a nightly rate between 99 and 159; there's an innkeeper, the respondent. All there for the public to see and take advantage of. That -- Mr. Perlow suggested that they weren't operating as a hotel. I just wanted to make clear -- I'm not sure if they're -- how they Page 37 November 29, 2012 want to call this, but it looks like a hotel, it walks like a hotel, it's being advertised like a hotel. It's pretty much a hotel. MR. PERLOW: Excuse me. Is this testimony or is this argument at -- MR. WRIGHT: This is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is argument. MR. PERLOW: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: This is argument, yes; thank you. So under 2.02.03, the allegation is that it is a prohibited use in Estates zoning district. As a sidenote, in the event that the board finds that they -- this is a lawful use, we have a tandem item related to the lack of a home occupation license. Now, if the board rules in favor of the county, that will be a moot point, and we won't be addressing it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, that license used to be a receipt or receipt used to be a license? I saw some documentation to that. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. I believe it's now called a business tax receipt. And the allegation there is that they don't have one and they should. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: Now, that will not be necessary to address if the use itself is unlawful. So that's -- I'm going to tackle that first. Now, in order to get some testimony on the record, I'd like to call my first witness, and that's Ray Bellows from the zoning department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'm Ray Bellows. I'm the zoning manager for Collier County with the Collier County Department of Planning and Zoning. The land uses in Collier County are regulated through zoning Page 38 November 29, 2012 districts, and the zoning districts reference a standard industrial classification number that defines the use, and each zoning district will list those uses and the SIC code number. This gives property owners some assurance of what their land uses are and what zoning districts they are allowed. The idea is to protect the health, safety, and welfare and prevent nuisance uses from encroaching into residential districts or vice versa. The Estates zoning district is kind of unique. It's grouped under our agricultural type of zoning, which also permits single-family residential, but the definition section -- purpose-and-intent section of the estate is a single-family residence, which also allows certain limited agricultural uses. As Mr. Wright had indicated, our code talks about permitted uses. That's how we regulate. We don't list all the prohibited uses. The bed and breakfast is kind of similar to what's being discussed here, which is a transient lodging facility, which includes hotels, motels. The Land Development Code specifically lists those in commercial districts, not in the Estates, not in the ag, not in any residential district. It's a transient form of lodging. Now, a property owner who owns a single-family lot in the Estates can rent out that property, but there's timeline regulations that restrict that. The code defines daily rental to be transient hotel lodging. If you do that daily, you need to be in a commercial zoning district. MR. WRIGHT: I have a couple questions for Mr. Bellows, if I may. Now, first of all, I want to get the big picture on zoning. Collier County's a big place, and we have what's called a Comprehensive Plan? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: Could you explain to me what the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is? Page 39 November 29, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: The Comprehensive Plan is basically a guide for future development. It lists categories of residential districts, mixed-use districts, commercial districts. So any rezoning of land would have to be found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So we have an Estates master plan in the Comprehensive Plan -- it's the Golden Gate Area Master Plan -- as part of the Growth Management Plan, and it regulates land uses in Golden Gate Estates. The zoning districts that implement the Comprehensive Plan would list those uses that the Comprehensive Plan indicates are appropriate for those areas. In this case, it's single-family residential is the primary use. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Now, I have put up on the overhead a map, the Future Land Use Map, for Collier County, and I have noted with a blue dot -- probably appears as a black dot -- the location of the Rossomando property. Could you tell me whether or not that's in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that is. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. And, now, there are zoning regulations, as you've testified, that implement that Golden Gate Area Master Plan; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: Now, do those zoning regulations allow for this type of commercial activity at this location? MR. BELLOWS: No, they do not. MR. PERLOW: Objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What are you objecting to? MR. PERLOW: Who's defining it as a commercial activity? MR. WRIGHT: Perhaps I should clarify. Does the Golden Gate Area Master Plan contemplate commercial activity such as bed and breakfasts and inns? MR. BELLOWS: No, it does not. MR. WRIGHT: Now -- but the zoning regulations you said Page 40 November 29, 2012 implement that master plan. Now, I have here -- and I've labeled County's Exhibit D -- the Estates zoning district. Now this, again, is the zoning regulations that implement the Comprehensive Plan; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: Now, go back to the violation at issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, could you move the mike a little closer to you when you're speaking? MR. WRIGHT: Sure. The violation at issue is Section 2.02.03 of the LDC. Are you familiar with that section? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Now, if you're looking at a particular piece of property and you're wondering, what can I do on this property, how do you determine what you can -- what are the lawful uses of a particular parcel? How do you determine that? MR. BELLOWS: Well, we have reference to the zoning maps, and the zoning maps show what district the property's zoned. And you go to the Collier County Land Development Code for that zoning district which specifies the permitted uses, conditional uses, and accessory uses. And commercial industrial uses list the SIC code for -- help better define those uses. The residential uses don't reference the SIC code. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Now, this zoning district -- I have the zoning regulation applicable to this parcel, Estates zoning district. Within that regulation, there's a list of permitted, accessory and, ultimately, conditional uses. On that list of what's permitted, are hotels allowed? MR. BELLOWS: No, they are not. MR. WRIGHT: Are beds and -- bed and breakfasts allowed? MR. BELLOWS: No, it is not. MR. WRIGHT: Are inns? MR. BELLOWS: Nope. Page 41 November 29, 2012 MR. WRIGHT: Transient rentals? MR. BELLOWS: No, they are not. MR. WRIGHT: The only -- so could you please tell me what the only permitted uses are under the land development regulations there? MR. BELLOWS: As you can see on the visualizer, it's -- the primary use is single-family residential, single-family dwellings, which also includes family-care facilities. And there's a section in the code that has more specific criteria for those uses; essential services, which is also a separate section in the Land Development Code regulating different types of essential services; and then public schools are also permitted in the Estates as permitted uses. MR. WRIGHT: Are you aware of any conditional use or accessory use that would allow this type of operation? MR. BELLOWS: No, there is not. MR. WRIGHT: Not in this zoning district? MR. BELLOWS: Not in this zoning district. MR. WRIGHT: Next up, I'm going to put on the overhead -- this has been approved as county's Exhibit E -- the definitions for dwelling from the LDC and the definition of hotel. Now, you just testified that single-family dwellings are allowed in this zoning district. When I -- when you say "dwelling," does that mean more than one family could live there? MR. BELLOWS: One family. MR. WRIGHT: One family -- no more than one family? MR. BELLOWS: Hence the name single family. MR. WRIGHT: So under that single-family zoning category, that permitted use, you can't have more than one family? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: So operating of a -- operation of a bed and breakfast or an inn-type of facility that invites and actually has additional families on it would be a violation of that particular section? Page 42 November 29, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: And it would no longer be a single-family dwelling under that definition and, therefore, an unlawful use? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. MR. WRIGHT: So, in your opinion, is the operation of a bed and breakfast or an inn-type of facility, the advertising of that use, is that a violation of the LDC? MR. BELLOWS: In my opinion, it is a violation. MR. WRIGHT: And it is a violation of Section 2.02.03 of the LDC? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it is. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. And if you could just pin this down, why would it be a violation of Section 2.02.03 of the LDC? MR. BELLOWS: The Estates zoning district clearly specifies the permitted uses. Bed and breakfast or transient lodging or hotel is not specifically listed. So under that section of the code, 2.02.03, it would be deemed a prohibited use. MR. WRIGHT: That's all I have. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PERLOW: Mr. Bellows, are you aware in the State of Florida there are other statutory definitions for the term "hotel"? MR. BELLOWS: There may be. I'm not familiar with it. MR. PERLOW: So you wouldn't be surprised if a hotel were defined under Florida Statute 5.09.242 as a facility that must have 25 rooms; would that surprise you? MR. WRIGHT: I would object to this. There is a provision in your rules that prevents you from hearing any evidence suggesting that the county's ordinance conflicts with a statute. We have a definition within our ordinance of a hotel. That's on the screen. MR. PERLOW: There are state definitions as well that -- MR. WRIGHT: He's referring to a statute and suggesting that Page 43 November 29, 2012 there's a conflict. You don't have jurisdiction to hear that argument. MR. PERLOW: You can hear a definition of a hotel under a state statute. MR. WRIGHT: And I would add to that. There is a state statute that regulates hotels. It's a statutory scheme that requires registration with the state. What they're trying to do is cherrypick a definition from that statutory scheme and say it applies to this case. They don't register with the state. They're not inspected by the state. They don't fall under that statute. So not only do you have -- don't have jurisdiction to hear that argument, it's a deceiving argument, and it's not applicable here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As Mr. Kelly stated earlier, we're here with the LDC. That's what we monitor. Not the state regulations. MR. PERLOW: Does the Collier County Land Development Code also have another definition of a hotel as the transient building or facility with full dining services, cocktail lounges, and fitness rooms; have you seen that definition? MR. BELLOWS: What was the definition title? MR. PERLOW: A destination resort hotel is a transient lodging facility building with full dining services and cocktail lounges and fitness rooms. Have you seen that definition? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I have. MR. PERLOW: All right. What is the primary use of the Rossomando property? MR. BELLOWS: What is the primary purpose of-- that's allowed by our code or how they are operating? MR. PERLOW: No. I'm asking you what the primary use of the Rossomando property is today. MR. BELLOWS: As the code case has cited? MR. PERLOW: No. I'm asking you, sir, if you know what the primary use of the property is. Page 44 November 29, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: The primary use is regulated by the Estates district, and it should be a single-family dwelling as defined by our Land Development Code. And if they are not abiding by those regulation, then they are violating our ordinance. MR. PERLOW: Is the Rossomando property a single-family dwelling? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. PERLOW: It is, isn't it? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. PERLOW: And that's a permitted use under Estates zoning; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: The structure is a permitted structure. Now, if it's being operated in a different manner, then it's not. MR. PERLOW: Sir, under the Estates zoning, a permitted use under Al is a single-family dwelling -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. PERLOW: -- isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. MR. PERLOW: Are the Rossomandos living in that property and using it as a single-family dwelling? That's what I'm asking you. MR. BELLOWS: If they're using it for transient lodging, then it's a violation. MR. PERLOW: I'm not asking you that, sir. Do you know of your own personal knowledge if the Rossomandos are using that property as a single-family dwelling? MR. BELLOWS: I'll defer that to -- I don't do the code enforcement. MR. PERLOW: Well, who's testifying here? MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Bellows just said that he doesn't know the answer to your question. MR. PERLOW: If he doesn't know the answer, he can state he doesn't know the answer. I have additional questions for Mr. Bellows. Page 45 November 29, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I do not do code enforcement, so I don't know if they're -- specifically how they're operating. MR. PERLOW: But you know that accessory uses under B1 are permitted; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Accessory uses are allowed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are the accessory uses allowed or the stated accessory uses? MR. BELLOWS: Accessory uses as defined in the Estates zoning district is allowed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PERLOW: And under B 1, specifically, uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted as of right in the E district, that's -- that is the definition, one definition, in B1 of an accessory use; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. PERLOW: And when -- under B1, a use that is accessory and incidental, it is permitted; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. PERLOW: So if you're using your property as a single-family dwelling and also there's an accessory -- an incidental use, that is permissible? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. PERLOW: I'm going to ask the board to refer to Exhibit 2, if I may. MS. BAKER: Mr. Perlow, is that your exhibit packet? MR. PERLOW: That's my exhibit for -- MS. BAKER: We haven't accepted -- they haven't accepted your exhibit packet yet. MR. PERLOW: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. WRIGHT: No objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have hard copies for us, or are you going to show us? Page 46 November 29, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Screen it. MS. BAKER: We'll have hard copies as well, but we will also put it on the screen. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the exhibits. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we wait a second and see how many exhibits there are, and we can accept them all at one time. MR. KELLY: Is this your entire packet, sir? MR. PERLOW: Four exhibits, please. MS. BAKER: The four exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PERLOW: I haven't actually addressed Exhibit 1 yet. I wasn't aware that Mr. Bellows was going to testify first. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Wright, do you have any objection to the four exhibits so we can vote to accept them or not? MR. WRIGHT: I might need a moment to go through these. I have 20 pages here to review. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we take a 10-minute break so Mr. Wright won't strain his eye too much to read them all in 20 minutes. We'll be back at 20 -- how about 10:35, how's that, fourteen minutes? MR. MIESZCAK: 10:25? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 10:25, I'm sorry. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back. Okay. Mr. Wright, have you had a chance, in that huge break, to read the packages that have been submitted? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman. And we are okay Page 47 November 29, 2012 with all of the exhibits except for Exhibit 2, and that exhibit is a December 2004, apparently, a memorandum, staff clarification, and it was authored by Ross Gochenaur. He's not here. This thing's eight years old. The code may have changed between the date of this opinion and today. And I'm informed by the zoning department, Mr. Bellows, who we could get up here, that it's very possible that there have been subsequent interpretations on the same topic. So without having Mr. Gochenaur here knowing the context of this inquiry that led to this memo, we would have to object to it. It's hearsay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, let me start out by accepting a motion from the board to accept the other exhibits. One we've already done. Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 and the one that has no number on it. MR. MIESZCAK: We have objection to No. 2? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Right, from the county. MR. MIESZCAK: So we don't look at that? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to -- MR. MIESZCAK: Are we doing -- motion to -- for Exhibit 1, 3, and 4; is that what we're saying? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion for 1, 3, and 4, exhibit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 48 November 29, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. PERLOW: With respect to Exhibit 2, if you will recall, the last time we were here a letter was offered by somebody who was proposed to be an expert giving an opinion. That was admitted into evidence without that person being here. So -- and you considered giving weight to the letter, and considering it in that capacity. This Exhibit 2 is a code staff clarification. It can be admitted. He can be questioned on it. If he doesn't know if there are any amendments or changes to it, he can so testify. But having the person actually here is not necessary, especially in view of the board's prior decision; particularly a decision in this case. So this exhibit, if he knows what's in here, he can testify to it. If he doesn't know what's in here, he can testify to it. If he doesn't know if there are clarifications, he can so state, but that shouldn't affect this board's accepting this as an exhibit into evidence. It can be considered for what it's worth. MR. WRIGHT: I'll respond that I don't know that it's necessary to go to the mat on this one. I don't vociferously object to it, but I would point out -- in fact, at this time I'll stipulate to it coming in if the board would allow that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: And if I may make my points with respect to the deficiency of this exhibit for the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We haven't looked at them yet because we haven't accepted them. So I accept a motion to accept Exhibit 2. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion to accept 2. Page 49 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. So all the exhibits have been accepted. MR. PERLOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, you want to give the board about 10 minutes to read these or you -- or do you want us to wait, and you'll let us -- lead us down the path, both of you, as we go? MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I just want to point out that something that's eight years old and questionable as to the context it was written and whether or not there have been changes to this interpretation in the section of the LDC; it's short on credibility. And I would also add that Mr. Gochenaur's not here to answer questions relating to this. So for that reason, I think that this exhibit should be given very little weight. And I would add that -- I'm not sure where Mr. Perlow's going with this, but this guesthouse definition does not contemplate rentals or commercial use of the property. And that's all I have to say about this exhibit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who is Mr. Gochenaur, by the way? MR. WRIGHT: He's the former zoning director of Collier Page 50 November 29, 2012 County. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So he was the -- prior to Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Ross was a planning manager during that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you seen this memo? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And it should be noted that the Collier County Growth Management Division, a few years ago Claudine O'Claire, who's the manager of our business center, was working with zoning staff to create an updated version of this clarification memo to address current issues with the code, and has -- our Land Development Code has changed over the last 10 years or eight years, so I believe that's kind of a dated document. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a replacement for this one? MR. BELLOWS: I believe there is, but I don't recall it offhand. So we'll have to do some checking. But I remember working with her on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're in the middle of you asking questions of-- MR. PERLOW: Mr. Bellows. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. PERLOW: And if I could continue, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. PERLOW: Thank you. Mr. Bellows, under Estate district -- they were talking about that. And under B1, a use that is accessory and incidental is permitted; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. PERLOW: And we're referencing now Exhibit 2, which is a Collier County code development code staff clarification memo; isn't that correct? Page 51 November 29, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. PERLOW: And under background considerations in that memo it states, the first two lines, I believe, guesthouses, cottages, and guest quarters, guest suites are permissible as uses accessory to permissible principal single-family residences; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. PERLOW: It states also at the end of that paragraph, does it not, that this staff clarification is intended to establish guidelines to assist building plan reviewers to determine if a structure or building addition meets the LDC definition of any of these accessory uses; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. PERLOW: And under C on the second page, just the first line, guest quarters, guest suite, it refers to guest quarters and guest suites as, quote, this accessory use; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. PERLOW: In fact, under the code Section 1.08.02, guestrooms are defined as attached rooms which could be used as -- and I'm emphasizing the word, temporary sleeping accommodations; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. PERLOW: We're talking about interpreting the code and not looking outside the code, isn't that correct, here? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. PERLOW: And we're trying to determine if, under Estate District E, Mr. Rossomando can rent rooms to outside individuals; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's what -- MR. PERLOW: That's what we're here for, right? MR. BELLOWS: -- the intention is, yes. MR. PERLOW: And under the Estate District E, we know he can use the property as a single-family dwelling; isn't that correct? Page 52 November 29, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. PERLOW: And under B 1, if there's an accessory and incidental use to the uses permitted as of right, those are acceptable as well; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. PERLOW: And using the property as temporary sleeping quarters is an accessory use; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: As clearly defined in the code, it talks about guesthouse being limited to residents and their guests on a temporary basis. MR. PERLOW: That's what guestrooms are, correct, using the rooms on a temporary basis; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: For family members and the guests of the family members. MR. PERLOW: Well, where does it say that in that memo? Does it state that anywhere in that memo? MR. BELLOWS: That memo is not a zoning document. MR. PERLOW: We're talking about strictly what the code states, and the definition -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, you have to -- MR. PERLOW: Under 1.0, that particular section, that particular section doesn't refer to family members and nonfamily members. It talks about guestrooms used on a temporary basis; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: The Land Development Code defines guesthouse as an accessory dwelling structure which is attached or detached from a principal dwelling located on the same residential parcel and which -- and accessory dwelling serves as an accessory use providing living quarters for the occupants of the principal dwelling, their temporary guests, or their domestic employees. MR. PERLOW: Under 1.08.02, guest quarters/suites are defined in the Land Development Code as an attached or detached room or suite which could be used as a temporary sleeping accommodation Page 53 November 29, 2012 which is integrated as part of the principal use of the property and may contain running water, et cetera, et cetera. Isn't that what that says? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it does. MR. PERLOW: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And if I might add -- MR. PERLOW: No, there's no question pending, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's a new staff clarification that was -- I referred to earlier that was being worked on by Claudine O'Claire. It's my understanding that that guest quarters, slash, guest suites is intended to only apply to those Planned Unit Development zoning districts that specifically list that use. MR. PERLOW: Has the code been changed? MR. BELLOWS: The code? MR. PERLOW: Has this definition been changed? MR. BELLOWS: No, it has not. MR. PERLOW: And this definition refers to rooms being used as temporary sleeping quarters; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and the staff clarification makes it clear that it applies to PUDs that list that term. MR. PERLOW: We don't have that here, do we? MR. BELLOWS: We don't. MR. PERLOW: Now, we're talking about going strictly by what the code says. This is a definition in the code; is it not? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it is. MR. PERLOW: All right. So sleeping in those rooms would be an accessory use, isn't that correct, if the rooms were used for guests? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. PERLOW: And if that use is incidental to the primary use as a single-family dwelling, it would be permitted under estate district zoning; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: If it's deemed to be accessory to a single-family dwelling. Page 54 November 29, 2012 MR. PERLOW: If it's accessory -- MR. BELLOWS: If it's deemed to be. MR. PERLOW: If it's deemed by this board to be an accessory incidental use to the use of the property as a single-family dwelling, the use is permitted; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I ask a question, since it's on this subject and I'll probably forget about it? Somebody has a house and they have a guesthouse; that's what this argument is going back and forth. Guesthouses are legal. The business that you're talking about there is not being argued at this point; is that correct? MR. PERLOW: Well, I was going to ask questions about the business tax receipt. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PERLOW: I can get to that now, essentially, if that's permissible with the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. PERLOW: I'd ask you to reference Exhibit 4, please. Do you know who a Carolyn Francis is? MR. BELLOWS: Could you repeat the question? MR. PERLOW: Do you know who a Carolyn Francis is? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so. MR. PERLOW: It says on the third page of this document that she's a branch office manager in business tax receipts on Horseshoe Drive in Naples, Florida. Do you have any reason to doubt that that's who she is? MR. BELLOWS: No, I do not. MR. WRIGHT: I would object to this line of questioning. Mr. Bellows is here for zoning purposes, and he's not -- doesn't have knowledge about business tax receipt. If he does, it hasn't been established. Page 55 November 29, 2012 MR. PERLOW: Well, if he doesn't have any knowledge, he can certainly so testify. I'm asking him to reference an exhibit. Part of one of the charges against the Rossomandos is this business tax receipt issue, so I'm trying to determine if this witness knows anything about that. MR. BELLOWS: I'm not involved with the business tax receipting. MR. PERLOW: All right, fine. I have no further questions of Mr. Bellows. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have questions of another -- MR. PERLOW: I'm not sure if my brother is resting his case or if he has any other witnesses. MR. WRIGHT: My only witness is Mr. Bellows, but I do have a couple follow-up questions, if I may. Now let's talk about guesthouses. Is there any instance in the Estates where you have a single-family home where you can have more than one family living at the single-family dwelling? MR. BELLOWS: None that I know of, legally. MR. WRIGHT: And is there any suggestion in the definition, in this memo, or anywhere that you're aware of that a guesthouse would be a lawful use of-- a lawful use of land where the principal residence is being offered for daily rentals separate from any guesthouse? MR. BELLOWS: There are no instances that I know of where that is done legally. MR. WRIGHT: So if a house had a guesthouse as an accessory structure and was renting out three of the rooms within the primary residence to different families, would that be a violation of Section 2.02.03 of the LDC? MR. BELLOWS: My opinion, it would be. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. And is there -- in the suggestion in the definition that guesthouses are for their temporary guests or domestic Page 56 November 29, 2012 employees, does that include, in your opinion, those guests that you have solicited via the Internet? MR. BELLOWS: It would not. MR. WRIGHT: That's all I have. Thank you. MR. PERLOW: Just for clarification, there's been no testimony that they're renting out -- the Rossomandos are renting out a guesthouse. We've been talking about rooms within the primary residence here, and there's this continuing reference to a guesthouse -- Mr. Rossomando will testify that his mother lives in the guesthouse. They don't rent out the guesthouse. They're renting out rooms in the primary residence on occasion. So just for purposes of clarification, there was continuing reference to a guesthouse. MR. WRIGHT: Well, if I may, we didn't bring up guesthouse; he did, via this exhibit. MR. PERLOW: Well, the exhibit brought up rooms. It references temporary sleeping quarters and suites and rooms. That's what we referenced. MR. WRIGHT: So the guesthouse is not being used for transient rentals? MR. PERLOW: No, it is not. MR. WRIGHT: It's got Grandma in it. The house is being used for unlawful transient rentals. MR. PERLOW: Well, that's -- MR. WRIGHT: And I believe this argument is a red herring. Guesthouse is off the table. MR. PERLOW: That's his opinion what it's being used for. This board wants us to go by the code. You're trying to interpret the code strictly. So if there's a permitted use and there's an accessory use which is incidental, it's permitted under the code, and that's what we're going by. I would call Jeff Letourneau, please. Page 57 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Jeff s been sworn already. MR. PERLOW: Mr. Letourneau, with respect to the violations at the Rossomandos, who actually observed the violations? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't believe anybody has observed the actual renting of. We just had a complaint, and then we referenced the website as far as going forward with this case. MR. PERLOW: So no one from your office has seen one guest at this location; isn't that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: Not that I know of. MR. PERLOW: There have been past investigations; isn't that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: There have. MR. PERLOW: How many past investigations? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not quite sure about that. MR. PERLOW: Well, I'd like you to refer to Exhibit 1, please, and ask the board to do so as well. MR. LETOURNEAU: Give me a chance to take a look at this. MR. PERLOW: That's fine. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. PERLOW: According to this, previous complaints were filed, this one in particular in February of 2010. Do you know who investigated this complaint? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not sure. It doesn't really say on here who investigated it. MR. PERLOW: What was the finding? MR. LETOURNEAU: There's no finding on these pages, I don't believe. MR. PERLOW: Well, it says -- under outcome, what does it say? MR. LETOURNEAU: What page are you referring to here? MR. PERLOW: I have Exhibit 1. It's a two-page document. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. Outcome -- okay, outcome, no Page 58 November 29, 2012 violations found. MR. PERLOW: And also on Page 2, September 14 of 2010 -- this is a separate case number; isn't that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: It is. MR. PERLOW: And no violation was found at that time as well; isn't that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's what this paper states, yes, sir. MR. PERLOW: Do you know why no violation was found? MR. LETOURNEAU: I can't recall, to be honest with you. MR. PERLOW: Do you know who conducted the inspection? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, sir. MR. PERLOW: But this is an issue that was before code enforcement on two prior occasions; isn't that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: It appears to be, yes. MR. PERLOW: And at least based upon this document, on these two prior occasions, no violation was found each time; isn't that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: According to these documents, yes, sir. MR. PERLOW: But you don't know why no violation was found? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not going to hazard a guess at this point. MR. PERLOW: I'd ask you to reference Exhibit 3, please. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. PERLOW: Mr. Letourneau, Exhibit 3 is a list of vacation rentals available in the Naples area, and those rentals are available for various periods of time from 30 days to 60 days, perhaps six months. There are also daily rates on that site. Is it your opinion that all of those are in violation? MR. LETOURNEAU: Without investigating each and every one of them, I couldn't tell you what's a violation and what's not at this point. Page 59 November 29, 2012 MR. PERLOW: But if somebody is renting their condo for 30 days, would you consider that a transient use? MR. LETOURNEAU: Possibly. MR. PERLOW: Unless, of course, the rental of that condo was an accessory and incidental use; isn't that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: Accessory and incidental to the -- MR. PERLOW: Primary use as a dwelling. MR. LETOURNEAU: So you're saying that the owners are still living at the property, and they're renting a room? I mean, I'm not really sure where you're going. MR. PERLOW: What I'm asking is -- MR. WRIGHT: I would object to this line of testimony. It's irrelevant. We're talking about other cases. We're even willing to stipulate that this type of violation may be going on elsewhere, but we're not talking about other violations. We're talking about this property. MR. PERLOW: That's fine. Then I'll withdraw the question. Are you familiar with the tax receipt situation for which the Rossomandos were charged? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm familiar that they don't have one. MR. PERLOW: Okay. Are you aware that they had previously spoken to somebody at tax receipts? MR. LETOURNEAU: Not until I just heard it today when you brought it up, I believe. MR. PERLOW: Okay. So if you could reference Exhibit 3, please. MR. LETOURNEAU: Exhibit 3? I've got 3 and 4 in front of me. MR. PERLOW: Oh, exhibit 4, I'm sorry. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, all right. MR. PERLOW: Are you familiar with a Carolyn Francis? MR. LETOURNEAU: I am. Page 60 November 29, 2012 MR. PERLOW: And who is she? MR. LETOURNEAU: She works for the business tax receipt office, I believe. MR. PERLOW: Do you see in the last page here where an inquiry was made of Ms. Francis regarding whether or not a tax receipt was necessary, and do you see her reply? MR. LETOURNEAU: Do you see it here? I see an Andrea Thompson. Okay. Hold on. Last page. Hold on. Let me read this. I do see it, yes. MR. PERLOW: And do you see where Ms. Francis states, if this is your personal property and the only activity occurring from this location is renting the rooms, you are not required to obtain a business tax? MR. LETOURNEAU: I read that, yes. MR. PERLOW: So that was the opinion from that office; isn't that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: For renting rooms, yes, but that isn't the whole situation we're talking about here. Obviously, she didn't get the whole, you know, transient lodging, daily rates, and the zoning at all. She just -- people can rent their rooms. MR. BELLOWS: It's just a business tax. MR. WRIGHT: I would also object to this line of questioning. Basically, we're quoting somebody trying to establish that -- they're quoting them for the purpose of the truth of the matter asserted in this statement, which is hearsay. This is classic hearsay. And without her present we have no idea what the context of the discussion was and, in fairness, we should be able to ask Ms. Francis questions, not a third party. MR. PERLOW: This body can accept hearsay evidence. That's clear from its own rules and regulations. So the board can consider it for what it's worth. I don't think anyone's going to question on this board that this is a Page 61 November 29, 2012 memo that went back and forth. Now there's four people up there assisting the witness, and I would just like to question the witness and finish, and then he can be examined by counsel. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. PERLOW: On Page 1 it states also, hi, I have one dwelling unit that I rent three rooms to tourists. This is Mr. Rossomando writing to the business tax receipt department. Do you see that? MR. LETOURNEAU: I do. MR. PERLOW: So he's explaining to them exactly what he does, which is renting three rooms to tourists. Do you see that? MR. LETOURNEAU: I do see that. MR. PERLOW: Who decided in your office to charge Mr. Rossomando with this business tax receipt issue? Was that your decision? MR. LETOURNEAU: It was. MR. PERLOW: All right. Has your opinion changed at all by what you're seeing from -- MR. LETOURNEAU: No. MR. PERLOW: -- Carolyn Francis? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. MR. PERLOW: I have no further questions. MR. MIESZCAK: I have one question. In Exhibit 4, you read what Carolyn Francis wrote. You read half the paragraph. MR. PERLOW: I can finish reading that paragraph. MR. MIESZCAK: It would be -- well, you don't have to. I'm just saying, you read half of it, and the rest of it says, however, you will need to contact the Department of Business and Professional Regulation about registering for your lodging and the Collier County Zoning Department if renting multiple rooms are allowed in your location. MR. PERLOW: Yeah. And Mr. Rossomando will testify to that, Page 62 November 29, 2012 but that was a separate issue than the business tax receipt for which he's being charged here today. That's why I didn't ask this gentleman about that. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are you finished or -- with this? MR. PERLOW: Yes. Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you finished with all your questions? MR. PERLOW: Of him, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have questions of another -- MR. PERLOW: I'm not sure if Mr. Wright has questions of Mr. Letourneau. If not, I'd like to ask Mr. Rossomando some questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fine. MR. PERLOW: Mr. Rossomando, I'd like to address the issue of the business tax receipt. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask first, has Mr. Rossomando been sworn in? MR. PERLOW: I believe, yes. Addressing the issue of the business tax receipt, did you ever discuss this issue with anyone? MR. ROSSOMANDO: I wrote the county tax department. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Could we have a microphone for you, please, sir? Do we have a portable or hand-held? Thank you. MR. ROSSOMANDO: I wrote the county tax department and -- who I found out issues the tax receipts, on their online page, and I asked that question. It was a general question online. And a series of emails back and forth, and I finally got the one from Carolyn Francis that said I wasn't required to have a business tax receipt. The next items on the page that was listed, that's a state Page 63 November 29, 2012 department. I contacted the state department and defined what I did, and they defined it as a tourist home. And they said, you need to fill out an application, which I started doing, but I felt that I -- since it was quite expensive to file that application, I felt that I needed to resolve the county issue first and then follow through with that. Before I first started this, I did go down to zoning -- and that was the next item on that page -- and asked them whether I can rent rooms in my home short term, and they said yes. And do I need a license for this? And they said no. So I proceeded to go forth. MR. PERLOW: When did you make that inquiry of zoning? MR. ROSSOMANDO: I believe it was in the 2004/2005 time frame. MR. PERLOW: When did you build your home? MR. ROSSOMANDO: CO in 2003, March of 2003. MR. PERLOW: So before you started renting out rooms, exactly who did you make an inquiry of? MR. ROSSOMANDO: The zoning. I went down to zoning and asked them whether I could rent rooms short term. MR. PERLOW: Going to the premises in question, is this your primary residence? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes, it is. MR. PERLOW: Do you have a home anywhere else? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No. This is the only residence I have. MR. PERLOW: Could you please describe the property? MR. ROSSOMANDO: It's an Estates zoned, as previously discussed. It's on five acres of property. The setback of the house is 150 feet from the road. My nearest neighbor is 200 feet away, so it's a very quiet area. We have four bedrooms, one of which I occupy, three of which, on occasion, I rent out to guests. MR. PERLOW: Who lives in the house with you? MR. ROSSOMANDO: My wife. Page 64 November 29, 2012 MR. PERLOW: Is there a guesthouse? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes, there is. MR. PERLOW: And who lives there? MR. ROSSOMANDO: My mother-in-law. MR. PERLOW: Are there any signs out in front of the property advertising a rental? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No, there is not. MR. PERLOW: When was the last time you rented rooms? MR. ROSSOMANDO: April. MR. PERLOW: And why is that? MR. ROSSOMANDO: You mean why I didn't have -- MR. PERLOW: Why haven't you had any guests since April? MR. ROSSOMANDO: A number of reasons. We've had two deaths in the family, several birthdays in which we travel and go away, health issues. We only rent guests -- only rent to guests when it's convenient for us. MR. PERLOW: And how do you determine who you're going to rent to? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Typically, we get an email from our website, and they inquire, and we have several emails back. Some as many as 10, and by the time the guests arrive, we know them quite well. MR. PERLOW: And what are the differences between your home and your renting rooms as compared to a hotel? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Well, the number of rooms, we talked about earlier, versus a hotel. But besides that, we don't operate like a hotel. A hotel has a front desk, a 24-hour front desk. A hotel doesn't close when it's inconvenient for the owner. A hotel doesn't take cash -- I mean doesn't take personal checks; we do. That's our primary method. We don't take credit cards. We don't do the services that a hotel does. A hotel has daily changes of room, daily cleaning, et cetera, et cetera. You're quite Page 65 November 29, 2012 familiar with what a hotel does. We rent rooms. MR. PERLOW: And how often do you go away? MR. ROSSOMANDO: We have five grandchildren. We go away for every birthday. We go away on vacation. We don't rent whenever the family visits us. MR. PERLOW: And you don't rent rooms when you go away? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No. MR. PERLOW: Why do you rent the rooms? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Because it's fun. We enjoy it. It's -- we enjoy doing this, and that's why we do it. MR. PERLOW: Were you ever contacted previously on the room rentals? MR. ROSSOMANDO: By who? MR. PERLOW: By code enforcement. MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes, twice before. They came to the house. They visited us. We told them what we do, and they went back and talked to people back there and came back to us and said that we're not in violation. MR. PERLOW: How many times was this? MR. ROSSOMANDO: This was two times before. MR. PERLOW: Did they tell you why you weren't in violation? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Frankly, I didn't care. MR. PERLOW: Okay. So, if you could, compare your use of the home as your primary residence with the rental of rooms for the board to consider. MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes. MR. PERLOW: Discuss that for us just for a few minutes, please. MR. ROSSOMANDO: Well, as we said, that it is my primary residence. It's the only residence we have. We live there full time. And we rent our spare bedrooms to supplement our income. MR. PERLOW: And that's done on a somewhat irregular basis, Page 66 November 29, 2012 as you've testified to? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes. MR. PERLOW: I have nothing further. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have no more questions of anybody? Do you want to sum up, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: I have a couple of questions of Mr. Rossomando. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. WRIGHT: Sir, is this property your homestead? MR. ROSSOMANDO: You mean is it homesteaded in coincidence with the tax department? MR. WRIGHT: Are you registered with the property appraiser to get a homestead exemption on this property? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: And are you aware of any limitations on renting your homestead? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No, I'm not. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. And how many rooms do you rent in this house -- MR. ROSSOMANDO: Three. MR. WRIGHT: -- in the principal structure? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Three rooms. MR. WRIGHT: And do you get compensation for that? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Now, you said you enjoy it. That's the main reason that you do it. Do you also do it for the extra supplemental income? MR. ROSSOMANDO: It helps defray some of the costs of the house, yes. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Now, you may have seen Exhibit Al that we presented. It was an advertisement for nightly rentals for this Page 67 November 29, 2012 place. Is that your website? MR. ROSSOMANDO: That is -- yes. MR. WRIGHT: And the innkeeper that's listed on that exhibit, is that you? MR. ROSSOMANDO: That's a form page. MR. WRIGHT: But for the public, when they see it and they're trying to identify who is the innkeeper, who is listed as the innkeeper on that website? MR. ROSSOMANDO: That is me. MR. WRIGHT: That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any further? MR. PERLOW: Just argument when you're ready. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. PERLOW: We're talking about, as I stated before, going strictly by what the code says. And that was the concern of this board last time, so we looked at this very carefully. In Estate District E, what is allowed as a matter of right? What's allowed as a matter of right is that you get to use your home as a single-family dwelling. Based upon the testimony here, that's exactly what the Rossomandos use the property for. It's a permitted use. It's a use as of right. It's a single-family dwelling that they use for their own purposes. Also allowed is an accessory use under B 1 . And, again, that states uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted as of right. So we've established that there's a definition in the code, and there's a staff clarification that temporary sleeping quarters constitute an accessible use. It doesn't say anything in there about renting or not renting. So we can't read into that. It says, you can use those rooms as accessory uses on a temporary basis, and that's what he does. And if it's temporary and incidental to the primary reason for the use of the Page 68 November 29, 2012 property, you -- that is allowed specifically in the Estate district. So what Mr. Rossomando does with that property is he has a single-family dwelling that he uses as an accessory use. On occasion he rents rooms. Again -- and I have to emphasize this, it can't be constituted as a hotel. I don't believe any member of the board would think that this is a hotel. There are no signs. He doesn't accept credit cards. He goes on vacation with his family. He rents it when he wants to rent it. It's not a hotel. Again, I don't think -- I think it's ridiculous to pose this as a hotel. It is what it is. It's his house. Once in a while he rents out rooms on a temporary basis, which is considered an accessory use under the Land Development Code, which is incidental, which is permitted. And, again, we're going strictly by what's here. We're not reading anything else into it. I know the board is concerned about what we read into these statutes and these regulations. If it fits within this definition, he can do it. But they're trying to bring up this issue of getting monies and renting and the homestead. That's not what's before the board. What's before the board is, is he doing what he can do within the boundaries of the zoning and, clearly, he is based upon the testimony that not only Mr. Rossomando has given, but based upon the testimony of the witnesses from my brother here. So I don't think there's any question. He's doing what he can do based upon the statute and the rules and regulations in the ordinances. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, just closing comments here. First of all, you can't have more than one family on a single-family home (sic) in the Estates. They're advertising today, right now as I speak, for more than one family. They're saying, come on. We have rooms available for you. That there is a violation. Page 69 November 29, 2012 In addition, according to the LDC definition of hotel, which I have on the screen, a home is being used as a hotel under this definition when it, quote, is offering transient lodging accommodations normally on a daily rate to the general public. The advertisement in Al offered -- let me just make sure I match this up with the definition -- transient lodging accommodations, normally on a daily rate, for the general public. They're a hotel under the LDC. It's not a permitted use, it's not an accessory use, and it's not a conditional use. It's prohibited under Section 2.02.03, and I ask that you find accordingly. Thank you. MR. PERLOW: If I could address one thing that was mentioned. To say that guests living there -- are living there because they're sleeping there on a temporary basis, therefore, they're out of compliance with the code is preposterous. According to that definition, that if you have guests staying in your condo it's more than a single-family dwelling because there's guests coming in. These people are coming there on a temporary basis. They're not living there. And there's a difference between guests coming in on a temporary basis and guests living there. The code references that it's allowable as an accessory use for guests to stay there on a temporary basis. That's not living there. So I really don't think you can take that position reasonably. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to close the public hearing now and entertain questions from the board. MR. KELLY: By questions, do you mean we can -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Move your mike up. MR. KELLY: We can still ask both parties? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. KELLY: I guess the part that I'm wrestling with is taking this situation outside the context of the case that we're hearing and applying it to my own life, so -- and trying to see if those scenarios Page 70 November 29, 2012 would fit these definitions. So, in other words, if my father decided to stay with me because we're same family, that would be okay but, yet, if my father's friend decided to come into town and stay in one of my rooms, that would not be okay because that's a different family, and I have an issue with that. That, to me, is just a little too much governmental control on my own property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you charging your father's friend? MR. KELLY: Now, that comes up -- there's part two of that. So if you're charging, does that now change the definition? It doesn't. The definition is still the definition, and maybe that's where the tax receipt issue comes in. But our order actually references -- and I specifically looked to this. It references both violations with an "and," not an "or." So it's -- if we find the tax receipt issue not a violation or we find the ordinance, the LDC violation not a violation, then the entire order gets strucken and, therefore, they're straight not in violation. And that's what I'm wrestling with. I'm literally the undecided voter from the I-4 corridor on this vote because there are these two issues. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Chris? MR. HUDSON: I just have one question before we actually get into discussion and I share some of my thoughts. But in the previous two times -- pardon me. In the previous hearing of this case back in the summer and then in the second -- in the second time when you asked for the rehearing very briefly, both times there was made mention about time of rental. And in this particular display, that was never brought up. So I'm curious, was the county and/or the respondent deliberately going around that issue that was so contentious in both the original hearing and the request for a hearing? Can someone just, sort of, Page 71 November 29, 2012 comment on that, because I'm not going to let that go. Because I think rental time is also something to consider, because you had actually mentioned and you used the words "precedent," that we had unintentionally set a precedent in our hearing back in the summer. So my question is, what is that precedent? Are we intentionally flipping that precedent back and saying now you can't rent a room for one day or two days or three days or five days? Because professionally and personally I rent houses and rooms all the time for one day. And I maybe don't do it in the Estates, because I live in the Estates, but I couldn't fathom knowing that now I can't rent it for a certain amount of time. So if you could just, sort of, elaborate on that. Either/or would be great. MR. WRIGHT: Well -- and this is something I brought up at the rehearing. There's a question of what is a transient rental; because I think we're all clear that a transient rental is kind of a hotel. If you look at the definition of hotel, again, and apply it to this case, I think it fits very squarely. And when it -- and in that definition it says offering transient lodging accommodations normally on a daily rate to the general public, and that's what's going on here. We have evidence that they're offering it on a daily rate. Now, the inquiry here is, well, what about three days? What about six days? What about six months? What can I do with my property? I don't know. Well, we know that one day is transient, and that's not allowed. Whether it's 14 days or two months, whatever that timeline is, may be unclear in some situations, but here it, really in my view, doesn't -- it's not germane to the case, because we have nightly rentals going on. Now, if you look at the tourist tax ordinance, it defines transient as six months or less, and also in our definitions, one that Mr. Perlow referred to, the destination resort hotel. It says the transient lodging Page 72 November 29, 2012 facility, parentheses, i.e., that is less than six month occupancy. So we've kind of-- and I'm not sure what Mr. Perlow's position is on this, but we've kind of felt that, well, six months or less is a transient rental. Daily is a slam dunk for a transient rental. And any argument outside of that is, I think, academic. But it is something that, I think, needs to be pinned down for homeowners, because right now -- and I admitted this plainly at the last meeting that there is some ambiguity in our ordinances. There is not a definition in our LDC of transient rental, and I think that there's one in the works right now. And I think it would be helpful. But when you get down to it, we have a daily rental. It matches the definition of hotel. Hotel would have to be listed in that zoning district as a permitted use, and it's not. They're allowed to have homes. And Mr. Kelly mentioned applying this to my daily life. He just mentioned that sometimes he has 10 people coming in and out from all sorts of places. Personally, I wouldn't like that next door to me. When you have a single-family home and you look at the zoning uses, and hotel's not listed, you have an expectation that there's not going to be a hotel next to you. So his neighbors have this increased traffic, this nonresidential activity going on to their detriment and to his benefit. He's breaking the law, making money to the detriment of the public. So as far as this question about transient, I think it's a very important one in laying out what somebody -- actually the timelines are if they're contemplating a six-month rental or an eight-month rental or a two-month rental, whether or not they can do it and what the requirements might be. But in this case we have a daily rental, and under any interpretation that's a transient rental. And, again, if it's squarely hotel, it's not allowed in this zoning district. MR. HUDSON: Can I follow up? Just to follow up. Page 73 November 29, 2012 In general, I think you're spot on with the daily rental. Though -- although it might be weak evidence, the website you provided is clearly evidence. It's a weak evidence because those are form pages. So the questioning about the innkeeper was, I think, a little bit abrasive because it is a form field. Now, he could have selected a different website that probably didn't say innkeeper. So there is that. But so, you know, we find him in violation -- and this is more to the board. If he was found in violation, I mean, the guy could abate the violation, technically, by turning it into a three-day rental, because that definition isn't there, right? So you go and find him in violation, and he turns around and he operates the business in a brand new way with a three-day rental. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I think that if it was anything less than six months, we'd be dealing with this exact same violation. MR. HUDSON: I get that. But then you might as well just round up almost every person or owner in the Estates. MR. PERLOW: That is correct. And owning condos and places everywhere. MR. MIESZCAK: Public hearing is closed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The public hearing is closed. They'll answer questions that are provided to them. MR. PERLOW: And if I could respond to that question just for a moment, I think the most important thing said in response to that question is -- and this is my brother speaking -- there is not a definition in the LDC of transient rental. So he wants to establish a definition, or he wants this board to establish a definition. So is the board going to establish a definition of a transient rental as being one day -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think the definitions are on the visualizer right now. MR. PERLOW: Well, he just stated that there is no definition in the LDC of a transient rental. So I think what we're left to do is, again, Page 74 November 29, 2012 to go back to what the code says. And today, have we established -- just today, just on this case, have we established that Mr. Rossomando has a single-family dwelling there as his primary use, he's using as a matter of right, and accessory use, once in a while, he rents rooms, and it's incidental to the primary use? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here's the thing. You've referred back to condos that are being rented, and they may be rented, and you provided in Exhibit 3 different condos that are -- offering as one week and so forth. Well, more than likely, those places that are being rented out as a weekly rental, the person that owns the unit's not there. Like Regatta, I know for a fact, does have rentals that are one-week rentals, but the owners are not there. So it's still a single-family residence, per se. Only one family is living there at a time; whereas, in this particular case, there's one family living in there, and there's a separate family entity living in the house, too. So I look at this strictly with this definition, and I feel there is a violation. That's my personal belief. There is a violation with just strictly no more than one family. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PERLOW: As far as that family issue's concerned that was brought up here before, you can have friends staying with you, nonrelatives, and they can be staying for two days, three days, one night, they can be staying for a week. Are they living with you? I don't know anyone would consider that living with you. They're staying with you on a temporary basis using temporary guest quarters and guestrooms, and that's within -- that's an accessory use. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I don't want to get into a semantic discussion. More questions? MR. MIESZCAK: I know the first time around I voted no, and I still feel that way. It's a single-family area. And the difference is, if Page 75 November 29, 2012 this is allowed and then the next-door neighbor does the same thing all the way down around the block, you've really overpopulated an area. That's why they have single-family developments. And so that's what it's for. And I'm sure when people buy a home, they know it's a single-family neighborhood. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would agree with that comment. MR. MIESZCAK: So that's what I don't understand what this entire thing's all about, because could you imagine if everybody in that whole neighborhood decided, wow, he can do it, we're all going to do it. What are you going to have -- what kind of neighborhood would you have? It would be overcrowded. So I'm still sticking with the same way I voted the first time, and I vote no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we haven't called for the vote yet or a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: I just want you to know my opinion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. L'Esperance, do you have any opinions? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would echo his opinions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other questions from the board, except from me? I haven't made my comments yet. When I look at the LDC, I see compelling reasons to deny the Rossomandos use as an inn. When I see the ad that's on the Internet, it shows it as an inn. I don't think there's any question about that. If you wanted to -- I wanted to address Mr. Kelly with the "and" or the "or." I don't believe they have a tax receipt, so that "and" would even carry there for both of it. There's no tax receipt, and it's being used as an inn. So that's my thought on it. And I'll accept a motion from the board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I call the question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're going to take a -- oh, we don't have a motion yet. Do you want to make a motion? Page 76 November 29, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that the respondents be held in violation of the LDC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. KELLY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, it carries with Mr. Kelly voting in the negativity (sic). MR. MIESZCAK: It's your last vote. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe. MR. PERLOW: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: He's retiring. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: I'm kidding. He's retiring. MR. KELLY: Is there an order to go along with that -- MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. KELLY: -- or are we just holding the existing order? MR. LETOURNEAU: Now, I have a recommendation if you guys want to -- MS. BAKER: The original order was found not in violation. MR. KELLY: Right, correct. MS. BAKER: So you found them now in violation, so we have a recommendation. Page 77 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Would you like to see that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. The recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by ceasing all prohibited business, lodging activities, including advertising associated with this Estates zoned property within blank amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of blank amount will be imposed for each day the violation continues. MR. KELLY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: For the respondents. Do you have any booked guests in the next couple of weeks? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes. MR. KELLY: How far out do you have them booked? MR. ROSSOMANDO: March. MR. KELLY: I say -- I say try to give them at least 60, 90 days. You know, after that, probably would be -- MR. ROSSOMANDO: There's only a few in that -- this interim. MR. KELLY: I'm just concerned, people have a flight booked. They thought that this was going to be all good. I was going to try to give him some more time to get those immediate guests -- MR. MIESZCAK: I would think no more bookings, that that would end it, and then it wouldn't inconvenience anybody that's already planning their vacation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it possible for you to let code enforcement know what bookings you have on the books right now and then establish this subsequent to that? MR. LEFEBVRE: I would object to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 78 November 29, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: No more bookings. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's no more bookings. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion for filling in the blanks for the recommendation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Go ahead. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I suggest that the Court -- that the board consider an $80 expense/cost as proposed for expenses. I also suggest that the property, within 30 days of this hearing -- no more activities within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day be imposed, and a caveat, if a caveat can be added, perhaps No. 3, that no more bookings be allowed as of this date of this hearing. MR. PERLOW: Isn't that in conflict with the provision before that, but within 30 days, no activities? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's -- so if there's anyone existing within the next 30 days -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's my intent. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- they can -- they'll still be able to stay, but we don't want any additional bookings. MR. PERLOW: But what if somebody is booked out 90 days or 120 days? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Then that's not going to be allowed. MR. LEFEBVRE: That will not be allowed. So if they get a call or email today, they -- and they want to book for any more than 30 days out, they can't. That's what we're saying. MR. PERLOW: And, again, if somebody is already booked for outside of 30 days, how is that handled? MR. LEFEBVRE: That would be -- they would be in violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's my intent. MS. ROSSOMANDO: That isn't fair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want me to repeat that? Eighty dollars for costs, 30 days. So if you have any bookings Page 79 November 29, 2012 within the next 30 days, that's okay. MR. PERLOW: That's a retroactive -- that's a retroactive application of your decision. These people are already booked -- MS. ROSSOMANDO: Yes. MR. PERLOW: -- and they're already scheduled to stay there. You're giving your decision today and having it apply to people that he already contracted with previously. He could be sued for breach of contract. The property is already booked for those days. I would ask that it exclude the already-existing bookings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If he had bookings for five years from now, would you say the same thing? MR. PERLOW: But he doesn't. He doesn't. You know, that's preposterous. He has bookings through March. He stated that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I don't know when those bookings were made, but he was aware of this potential violation back in February. MS. ROSSOMANDO: But in June we were allowed to do this. MR. ROSSOMANDO: In June we were -- you said we weren't in violation. MS. ROSSOMANDO: You gave us authorization in June to continue to do this. MR. PERLOW: They were found not in violation in June. MS. ROSSOMANDO: That's right. MR. LEFEBVRE: But then the case was brought back in front of you, too. MR. PERLOW: There was no finding. MS. ROSSOMANDO: There was no decision. MR. PERLOW: There was no decision. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I inquire as to Jean's opinion on this, please? MS. RAWSON: Well, I can't tell you how to rule. You've, obviously, found him in violation. Now you just have to put a period of time in there that they cease all bookings and cease all prohibited Page 80 November 29, 2012 business activities that you think is reasonable under the circumstances. I can't give you the number of days. I mean, you -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think that Lionel had an excellent suggestion that no more bookings will be accepted. I guess that should be immediate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Number three. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we know what's on your books now and you can let the county know -- is that okay with the county to let us know what bookings exist going forward, and then treat it as such? Yes. MR. KELLY: Can't we just give him four months, and that would cover the March time frame? MR. LETOURNEAU: The county would be okay with -- if-- the end of March would be fine with the county at this point. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would be amenable to change that from 30 days to a four-month period of time. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. MR. KELLY: Hold on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on that? MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chair, if I may, I just want to make clear that as of today, no more bookings. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's Caveat No. 3, correct. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. I just want to make sure that's clear. MR. LETOURNEAU: Can we also put in there, maybe ask that the advertising be taken down immediately so there's no -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. I mean, if you have no more bookings, what's the point? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree with that. Amendment to my motion, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me see if I have this now. MR. LETOURNEAU: And also include, too -- oh, I didn't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. Page 81 November 29, 2012 MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, you want me to read that in, too, right now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you -- MR. LETOURNEAU: 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. And let me -- $80 court costs, if you will, 120 days, that's the four months, and effective immediately you'll try to pull that ad down from the Internet. Doesn't make any sense if you're not going to be -- no new bookings as of today. MR. ROSSOMANDO: That ad that they referred to is due next week to be renewed. I will let them know not to renew it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Fair enough. MR. ROSSOMANDO: There's another website that is renewable next November. I will modify that website to reflect the decision of this board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PERLOW: One question I have. Is there going to be any reference in the order as to the time frame of the rental? That's something that's been discussed. We can't rent it at all to anyone for any length of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. PERLOW: We can't rent it for over six months either? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I guess we would cross that bridge when we get to it. We're talking about -- Page 82 November 29, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: It's a single-family. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is what we've heard today. This is the transient use, which is under six months. MR. PERLOW: Is that going to be in the order that it's anything under six months? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any intent on renting the rooms for over six months? MR. ROSSOMANDO: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then what are we talking about here? MR. PERLOW: Well, I'm asking -- I'm asking if it's going to be in the order that he's prohibited from renting the property for under six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whatever it says in the LDC carries. So that's what we live by. Jean, do you have any comments on that? MS. RAWSON: I don't think that the LDC specifically says under six months. MR. PERLOW: It doesn't say anything specific at all. MS. RAWSON: That's right. MR. PERLOW: That's what we've been arguing here. MS. RAWSON: So you can't make a law. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. That's why I said the LDC. Whatever it says, it says. MR. PERLOW: Which it doesn't say anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It will continue to not say it then. MR. KELLY: It will not specifically state. MR. MIESZCAK: What was the fine amount? MR. WRIGHT: If I may suggest, the word "transient" is something that would be safe to use rather than specifying a time period. MR. L'ESPERANCE: No more transient bookings as of Page 83 November 29, 2012 immediately. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jean, we'll leave that to you to write it up. MS. RAWSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion, and the motion is 80 days court costs -- MR. KELLY: Eighty dollars. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eighty dollars, I'm sorry; a dollar a day. MR. MIESZCAK: 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One hundred twenty days, $200-a-day fine after the 120 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And Item No. 3, no more transient bookings as of immediately. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No more transient bookings effective today, tomorrow, or whenever you -- well, no more bookings regardless of what your site has on it. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about the website, websites? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He said the website's going to be down by next week. Okay. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. PERLOW: May I have a moment? She's telling me the website can't come down. MR. ROSSOMANDO: There's two things there on the web. The one website that Mr. Wright had shown is due for renewal Page 84 November 29, 2012 December 8th. I'll tell them not to renew that. The other website is renewed next -- on November. I will modify that website to reflect the decisions of this board, and it will say right on the first page. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe this is the website you're referring, Dream Come True? MR. ROSSOMANDO: Yes, it is. MR. LEFEBVRE: So for clarification, what will be on this website now? Reflecting our ruling, what's it going to state? MR. ROSSOMANDO: It will state that we are no longer -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Permitted. MR. ROSSOMANDO: -- permitted to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So just take the site down. I mean, that would be probably -- MS. ROSSOMANDO: We don't -- MR. HUDSON: They don't own the site. MR. ROSSOMANDO: I'm going to use that as a blog. MS. ROSSOMANDO: We don't think it -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. There are no more rentals as of immediately regardless if your website comes down on the 8th or 9th. So if someone calls you Saturday morning and said I'd like to -- you can no longer do that, okay? MR. PERLOW: They understand that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ROSSOMANDO: Hello. My name is Colleen Rossomando. I just want to -- MR. KELLY: Wait. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The public hearing is closed. MS. ROSSOMANDO: Well, I wanted to address what you just said. We're not going to take our website down. We're going to clarify it. Our own personal website we should be allowed to continue to have with a modification that says we are no longer renting rooms. Page 85 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's fine. MS. ROSSOMANDO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I called for the vote before. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. KELLY: (Raises hand.) I mean, aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Carries unanimously. MR. KELLY: What about comments? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have a comment? MR. KELLY: (Witness nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: I have a comment. I spent the last seven years in affordable house. I'm now on the State Housing Authority Board, which is a gubernatorial appointment. And I wonder if we couldn't rush the -- continue the amendments to the LDC so that we get some more clarification on this. Because I see a couple things coming up in the head row that I'd just like to add to the record. Because of the foreclosure situation, there are a number of people whose credit's been wrecked and they're unable to secure financing to buy a home; therefore, they are renters. We can see now that the prices of renting are shooting up and that the opportunity for them to rent out rooms or guesthouses -- which isn't the case here -- but guesthouses would probably be beneficiary for our county. Additionally, bed and breakfasts are that cute-type homely atmosphere where people can come, which would benefit our Page 86 November 29, 2012 community with tourist dollars so that they can take advantage -- tourists can take advantage of the beauty of the area while spending their money here. And I think with the economy rebounding and, furthermore, the limitations that we have on impact fees and some of the shyness of land and so forth, I think that finding a way to work with people such as the respondents to make this all legal would be fantastic for our community. MR. WRIGHT: Well -- and if I may respond. There's a new structure with the Growth Management Plan and implementation of LDC cycles, and we have a lot more flexibility to move things onto the LDC cycles. We're not confined to two cycles year. So I will, today, send an email to the appropriate LDC people, Caroline Cilek and probably Ray, saying please hurry up on that -- on that update to the LDC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You can lobby that before the County Commissioners, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: I'm done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. PERLOW: Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As you were saying, Jen. MS. BAKER: Next case, Case No. 3, Case CESD20120008679, Terry J. Kramer. (The speaker was 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: Permit No. 2006014872 for a steel building, and Permit No. 2004080864 for a pool and electric, have both expired without all required inspections and the issuance of a certificate of completion/occupancy. Page 87 November 29, 2012 Location/address where violation exists: 825 11th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37014480003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Terry J. Kramer, 65 Perch Street, Haines City, Florida, 33844. Date violation first observed: June 6, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 25, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 23, 2012. Date of reinspection: November 8, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Chris, you're on. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph dated August 14, 2012, and one aerial photograph from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office dated November 8, 2012. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept it. MR. KELLY: Yeah, so moved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion by -- MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- Mr. Kelly. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second by Mr. Lefebvre to accept the exhibit. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 88 November 29, 2012 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. AMBACH: I received a complaint about the condition of the property at the office that the property in question had been abandoned for some time. After researching the property, I noticed the property was in lis pendens, and researching in the permits, I observed two expired permits, one for the pool and the second for a large steel building in the rear of the property. Due to the fact both permits were obtained by licensed contractors at the time, I forwarded my findings to Reggie Smith, a contractors licensing compliance officer for Collier County. He was able to determine the contractor for the steel building was no longer in business; however, the pool contractor was currently active. He was working with the pool contractor. An extension was granted by the building official on the pool permit for a remaining final inspection and permit fees to be paid by October 31, 2012. To date the permitting issues remain on the property, and the pool contractor failed to call in the final inspection and pay the outstanding fees associated with the permit. The case was then prepared for today's hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the property occupied? MR. AMBACH: It's not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KELLY: Is there an active investigation through licensing against -- MR. AMBACH: Yes, sir, there is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to find them in violation? MR. KELLY: Make a violation -- make a motion that a violation exists. Page 89 November 29, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation, Chris? MR. AMBACH: I do, sir, 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 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. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violations have been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to take a shot at filling in the blanks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at it. Sixty days, Page 90 November 29, 2012 $80.57 cost, 60 days for -- or a fine of$250 a day after that. Can I get a second on that motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Chris. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: And, Mr. Chair, Case No. 4, CEVR20120008514, Terry J. Kramer, is being withdrawn. So the next case will be No. 11 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have to modify our -- this being withdrawn? MR. KELLY: I don't think so, not if the county withdraws. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: I don't think so. MR. MIESZCAK: They can withdraw anytime. MS. BAKER: So the next case is No. 11, Case CESD20120012127, Gregory Lynn Thompson and Misty Lou Thompson. (The speaker was 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 Page 91 November 29, 2012 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: A historically permitted steel building in the rear yard now missing walls and doors and completely altered from its originally permitted state. Location/address where violation exists: 181 23rd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 36960760001. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Gregory Lynn Thompson and Misty Lou Thompson, 181 23rd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: August 15, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 23, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 21, 2012. Date of reinspection: November 8, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we go on, the case No. 10, Perez, did we skip that by accident? MS. BAKER: I did. MR. AMBACH: That's okay. We can do that one next. MS. BAKER: We can go back to it after this one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion to change the agenda? MR. KELLY: Motion to amend. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to amend. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 92 November 29, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Are we on Perez? MS. BAKER: No, we're on Thompson, No. 11 . MR. AMBACH: All set? I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs dated August 14, 2012, and three photographs dated August 21, excuse me, 2012. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. AMBACH: I received the compliant from the neighboring property owner who advised the once-permitted structure next door had been stripped of all walls and doors exposing the electric within, and he felt it was a health and safety hazard. I researched the property and found it to be in pre-foreclosure, and the structure had been legally permitted however completely altered without obtaining all required Collier County permits to do so. Page 93 November 29, 2012 A notice of violation was issued and case was forwarded to our foreclosure specialist. After no response from the owner or the bank, this case was prepared for today's hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I ask you a question on that picture there? MR. AMBACH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that an electrical box that I see? MR. AMBACH: It is, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what kind of cable is going throughout the place? MR. AMBACH: Oh, boy. I can't get that close to it. The photographs were taken with the permission of the neighboring property. It's in the rear yard. That was about the closest I could get. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The property is not occupied? MR. AMBACH: It's not occupied, no, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the FP&L off or on? MR. AMBACH: I'm not sure, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As far as a danger -- a hazard there, that would be an interesting thing to know. MR. AMBACH: You know, the neighbor's concerned with the electric -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can understand. MR. AMBACH: -- and with the fact that, you know, the walls and doors, he doesn't feel it's -- you know, he feels if a hurricane comes through, it could -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it won't blow the walls down. Do you have more pictures? MR. AMBACH: Just the ones that she showed. Did you -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You showed two, and I think you said you had three more. Yeah, we saw that one. MR. AMBACH: That's a picture, you know, of the whole structure. Then these photographs here are copies that I made of the Page 94 November 29, 2012 original permit to show that the permit was originally -- that the structure was originally permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: And what it used to look like. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MIESZCAK: Recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a recommendation? MR. AMBACH: 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 and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank 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 Page 95 November 29, 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to pay the fine of$80.57 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. MIESZCAK: -- 60 days, with a $200 fine. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Chris. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Okay. Going back to No. 10, Case CESD20120006147, Josse M. Perez and Isabel Perez. (The speaker was 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: An unpermitted window added to the garage along with a large hole in the garage wall with an A/C unit Page 96 November 29, 2012 within. Location/address where violation exists: 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 37221090008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Jose M. Perez and Isabel Perez, 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: April 24, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 28, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 25, 2012. Date of reinspection: October 3, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph dated April 24, 2012; one photo dated November 26, 2012, showing the blueprint of the home's exterior; and a violation determination letter from Thomas DeGram, the building official for Collier County. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second, Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 97 November 29, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. AMBACH: I received a complaint that the garage at the property had been converted to a living space without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits. After making a site visit, I observed the only changes to the garage were the addition of a window and a large hole in the wall housing a portable A/C unit. My research shows no permits were obtained for the improvements. I made contact with the owner, who admitted the improvements were made for her in-laws who were living in the garage at one time. She stated the garage was no longer being used for living purposes, and I was allowed entry to confirm. I issued a notice of violation for improvements, and the case was forwarded to our foreclosure investigator. After no response from the owner or the bank, this case was prepared for today's hearing. What you see in front of you there is the photograph I took of the record of permit for the house showing what it had originally looked like when it was permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you confirm that there's nobody living in that space? MR. AMBACH: Yes, no one in that home. They've moved out actually some time ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The regular dwelling, there are people living there? MR. AMBACH: There's no one at all on the property now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: It's completely abandoned, and it is secured. She locked the doors before she left, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion from Page 98 November 29, 2012 the board whether any violation exists? MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation does exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. MR. KELLY: Recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Recommendation, Chris? MR. AMBACH: 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 blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank 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 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 99 November 29, 2012 abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. KELLY: Make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with the time frame of 60 days and $200 per day. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that the $80.86 be paid within 30 days? MR. KELLY: Yes, part of the recommendation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case, moving on to No. 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number 3, Case CENA20120006825, Gwendolyn Green. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Original violation was of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181 . Violation location is 3675 10th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 41044640003. Page 100 November 29, 2012 Violation description: Litter consisting of, but not limited to, refuse, clothes, boxes, assorted metals, plastics and wood, tires, et cetera. Past order, on August 23, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4853, Page 1144, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 29, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$500 per day for the period between August 31, 2012, and November 29, 2012, totaling 91 days, for the total amount of$45,500. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.29 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $45,580.29. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. Page 101 November 29, 2012 MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 4, Case CEVR20110014528, Leon D. and Joan McCaskey. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-185(c). Location: 1335 Center Lane, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 75460840000. Description of the violation: Presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation including, but not limited to, Brazilian pepper, air potato, downy rose myrtle within a 200-foot radius of an improved property. Past orders: On February 23, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4772, Page -- I'm sorry -- Book 4772, Page 1315, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of October 15, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between August 22, 2012, through October 15, 2012, which is 55 days, for the total of$8,250. Order Item No. 4, abatement costs of$3,415 have not been paid. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $11,745.57. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. It's a little unusual -- I think this is the first case I've seen where they have abated, the county has abated the exotic plants. MR. JONES: Yeah, yeah. It's one of the few. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I get a motion from the Page 102 November 29, 2012 board? MR. KELLY: Make a motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second, Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, David. MR. JONES: You're welcome. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 5, Case CENA20120003516, Steven J. Martarano. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Articles VI, Section 54-181. Violation location is 211 20th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 39387240004. Violation description: Construction debris dumped on this Estates zoned property. Past order: On July 26, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4825, Page 103 November 29, 2012 Page 902, for more information. The property is in compliance with the code enforcement as of October 10, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$100 a day for the period between September 25, 2012, to October 10, 2012, totaling 16 days, for the total amount of$1,600. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.57 have been paid. Total amount to date: $1,600. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think the total amount is 6,600. MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No? MR. LEFEBVRE: Because it was abated on the 10th of October. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Move to accept the county's recommendation. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 6, Case CESD20110017435, Page 104 November 29, 2012 Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: Again, for the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. Original violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.2.13(f). Violation location: No site address. There's a folio, which is 732800002, located in Naples, Florida. Description of past orders: Failure to submit PUD monitoring report. On September 27, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4844, Page 317, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 29, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between October 13, 2012, through November 29, 2012, totaling 48 days, for the total of$4,800. Fine continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $4,880.86. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent? MR. JONES: No, sir, no. They are not available. I mean, we've made several attempts to make contact, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Page 105 November 29, 2012 All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. JONES: Thanks. MS. BAKER: Next case, No. 7, Case CESD20120004188, Doreen Bigica. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Violation is of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Violation location is 2391 19th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida; Folio No. No. 45965880003. Violation description: No Collier County building permits for garage door converted to double glass doors. Past order: On October 23, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4832, Page 1953, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 29, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$250 per day for the period between October 23, 2012, and November 29, 2012, totaling 38 days, Page 106 November 29, 2012 for the total amount of$9,500. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $9,581.43. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thanks, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any reports? MS. FLAGG: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Your sign is covering your head. We couldn't see you hiding in the corner. MS. FLAGG: Just some current department statistics. Since November 2008 thru November 18th, the banks and lenders have expended $3,063,000 to abate code violations in Collier County, resulting in 2,691 violations abated. Page 107 November 29, 2012 Since July 2009 through November 18th, yourselves, the special magistrate, and the BCC has waived $8.7 million in code fines. For the week, for the department, the lenders have expended 4,300, and year to date, which is since October 1st, the lenders have expended $78,000 to abate code violations. Year to date they've abated 66 violations. The number of code case property inspections for the week was 459, for a total of 3,582 since October. The number of cases closed with voluntary compliance for the week was 46; 558 since October 1st. The number of nuisance abatements processed were three for the week; 80 since October 1st. The number of bankruptcy documents -- and I shared with you-all before that the bankruptcies are increasing, which presents a challenge in that we -- everything stops in a bankruptcy unless we request a relief from stay from court, and we only do that if there's a significant health and safety issue. There were 10 documents received in the week; 60 documents since October 1st. The number of property lien searches -- and, again, those are what the realtors, investors, and community members use to determine if there are any open code cases on a property before they purchase the property. There were 115 requested in the week. There's been 806 requested since October 1st. And in the week there were four lien searches that identified open code cases. There have been 33 identified since October 1st. And the time from complaint by the community member to the first inspection was three days for the week, and then two, average, since October 1st, and that concludes the report. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. One quick question. On the abatement, has the county been getting their money when they abate a particular violation? Page 108 November 29, 2012 MS. FLAGG: Yes. What happens is that the property owner is given the opportunity to pay the invoice after the county abates. If the property owner does not pay the invoice, then we file a lien on the property. Typically, this is in the case of the foreclosure. So when the banks come forward, what we have them do is pay off the lien. The lien will, typically, include, pursuant to the policy, any hard cost, such as the cost to abate, and then the fines, that $8.7 million is -- the fines would be waived. So by creating this process through the implementation of the blight prevention program, what we're getting is, we're being able to abate the property so that blight doesn't impact our community. Any funds that we have to expend -- taxpayers' monies that we have to expend using this process, we do get reimbursed and still be able to move the properties through so that we get community members into homes so we don't have a lot of vacant homes or blight. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good, thank you. I'm going to just skip to -- the next meeting date is January 24, 2013. And then I'll go back to comments. I have -- we have a member that is leaving us. This is his last meeting. And any guess who it is, Mr. Kelly? Okay. Why don't you join me down front. MR. MIESZCAK: You got a knife? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A gun. MR. LEFEBVRE: Be nice. MR. MIESZCAK: Sir, it was a pleasure. MR. LAVINSKI: Good luck, Kenny. MR. MIESZCAK: You'll probably be the mayor pretty soon. MR. LAVINSKI: Are you blessing him or talking to him? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Both. You get to go in the middle. The code enforcement community would like to present you with this Certificate of Appreciation. There's been nobody that's been on Page 109 November 29, 2012 the board that I can say more about than Mr. Kelly. He is truly one of a kind. His compassion outshines anybody that's been on this board. And we are certainly going to miss him, except for you, Larry. And we would like you to say a few words. And, Diane, do you have anything to say? MS. FLAGG: I just want to echo the chairman's words that we really appreciate your service to the community, and you've done a great job. We'll miss you. MR. KELLY: Thank you. I would just like to say that over the last seven-and-a-half years I've noticed a changing of the guard. And when I first came on the board I, myself, as a board member was a little scared to be on the board, because there was an interpretation through the community and a reputation of the code enforcement department. And I've seen an unbelievable turnaround. I'd like to take credit, but it had nothing to do with me. So I want to congratulate you on doing a fantastic job. You and your investigators and supervisors have done a 180, and they are there now to support the community. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. MR. KELLY: And to my fellow board members, I really do believe we had the best board. And I think it's all of our compassion. You had said mine, but I really think every one of us are compassionate about our community and others, and that's why we are fair in everything that we do. So thank you. It's been a pleasure serving. (Applause.) MR. MIESZCAK: Here comes Air Force 1 to take him back. I make a motion to adjourn. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to adjourn. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. Page 110 November 29, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: We'll see you in the community. MR. KELLY: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:02 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD _i/AV-4441441rf14.■••■._ ' :ERT AN, CHAIRMAN dr These minutes approved by the Boar. on , as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 111