you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. is a meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Naples for it being held today at City Hall on the 23rd day of January, 2025, the here cases of alleged code violations. My name is John Crawl, I'm the chair of the Board. Other board members are seated behind their name plates. Our legal advisor is Robert Etchenfelder. A recording is being made of this meeting by mechanical means. This hearing will be conducted as informally, as is compatible with the justice formal rules of evidence. Will not apply, but fundamental due process will be observed. It will be necessary to object to any testimony, will not be necessary, object to any testimony that is introduced. However, should either party feel it necessary to offer an objection, such will be noted in the record and considered. Each party will have seven minutes to present their testimony and other evidence. Additional time may be granted if necessary. Only testimony and other evidence relevant to the subject matter of this hearing will be allowed or considered. Only testimony that is in the record of this hearing will be considered. Testimony or other evidence, which is unduly repetitive or cumulative in nature, will not be permitted. For each case, the burden approach shall be upon the Code Enforcement Officer or or other administrative official to show by ponderance of the evidence that violation did occur or does exist or has been repeated by assuming notice of the hearing has been given to the respondent as required by law. If proper notes has been given, a hearing may be perceived in the absence of the respondent. The first matters to be considered are those in which there is an admission of guilt by the alleged violator. Are there any such cases? Okay. We have none. The meeting clerk will now swear in all witnesses who are to testify in this hearing. The code enforcement officers will be sworn in once and when they will be under oath for all the cases of the day. Will all the witnesses please stand at this point and raise their right hand so that the sworn in can be done? Good morning. Do you swear from that the testimony you're about to give or will be giving is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you very much. Okay. Great. Thank you. Does either side wish to invoke the rule of excluding witnesses from the hearing room until they are called to testify? That's the rule sequestration. Okay, we got no request for that. Okay, we'll move to the agenda. Our first item on the agenda is a swearing, we have a new member, and we have three new terms. So those members have to please stand and get it sworn. Good afternoon, Jessica Rosenberg, Deputy City Clerk. Recently, the City Council took action to appoint our new member, Lee Davidson, and reappoint members, Stephen Greenwald, Richard Landite, and Maria Mayor. And I see all four of you are standing, so please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, and then say your name. I solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution and will uphold the laws of the United States and the state of Florida that it will in all respects observe the provisions of the charter and ordinances of the city of Naples, and will faithfully perform the duties of the Office of Code Enforcement Board Member. Thank you. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations to our new member, Mr. Lee. Now can we have a roll call please? Alternate member Abbott is absent. Member Davidson. Here. Member Greenwald. Here. Alternate member Jerry. Absent. Member Fawcett. Here. Member Landy. Here. Member Mayor. Here. Vice Chair Spar. Here. Chair Crow. Here. Thank you. Okay. Can we all rise now for the Pledge of Allegiance? Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, which stands one nation on the God and physical liberty and justice for all. And we have a approval of the minutes, approval of October 24th, Code Enforcement Board meeting minutes. I move to approve. Okay, second. Second. We have a second. This may. Okay. We could do a vote on it. Yeah, one do all of it. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any abstain? Or nays? No. unanimous. Prove one, okay. I My ass also, is there any additions? Delecions, corrections to the agenda? In motion to accept agenda. Motion to accept it. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Against. Okay. That passes. He knows. Now we move to staff comments. I've just welcomed to the Board of Mr. Newton and it's been a little while since we've all met together over the summer. So the little couple of changes. Mr. Eschenfelder is the board attorney and prior the incumbent is now the city attorney, Mr. McConnell, and who is representing the city here. Okay, great, great. Okay, let's move to the cases. Our first is 7.1, case number C-E-V-E-G202301729. Bill Quincy, co-compliance manager of city and apples. We already have the request of close them off to consider reduction in fines for this case. We do have compliance. Notification in this case achieved the mailing of the notices certified in first class mail. a depersonally-served copy of the notice to Gail Zahnley at the mall office on December 12, 2024. Notification exhibits A through D and exhibit in your packet and exhibit E is an affidavit of compliance. So we're not here with a hearing and the reduction of fines in the imposition hearings. We're not here to retry the case, just as a quick review. We are here to address the fine issues. We'll have the first two cases are just addressing the fines. But since it's been a little while, I'm gonna give you guys a brief summary of what happened and how we got here today. So this case originated back in the spring summer of 2023. noticed that the malls landscaping was falling into district pair. Their grass was getting high, bushes were growing into the sidewalk and some of the landscaping along the perimeter inside the mall was dying. The code office began communicating with the mall operators and they were aware they were trying to solve the issue. The local staff here has been great. So there's nothing they were doing their best over the course of that summer of 23. The mall operations manager was out there mowing the grass himself at times to try to do the best he could. Seeing that we weren't getting the progress that we were desiring over a few months, I began requesting correspondence with corporate representatives for the parent companies over the mall. We had a few meetings with people who come down from out of town to talk about their plans when we never were able to set a solid plan together to get this entire issue addressed. They just didn't really have a company that was regularly showing up to do maintenance and was falling into obvious disrepair. As moved into fall, we still didn't have compliance, so issued notice of violations. We didn't have compliance, so the case was heard in January of 2024. The board found them in violation of their landscape plan. So in 2016 they had submitted a landscape plan telling us what type of plans they'd like to have here and there. To keep them all look nice as part of a reparsaling project. Part of the requirement of having a landscape plan is to maintain that landscape plan. So at that January hearing, the board issued two orders. One was a 45 day notice to have the perimeter maintained and some ground cover installed, as well as a 90 day notice to have the compliance with the landscape plan. The 45 days, after 45 days, it did essentially have some ground cover down, and the perimeter was taken care of, so the city does not dispute that. And then we are waiting the completion of the entire project within the 90 days. Okay, the compliance date for that was May 7th, 2024. The board ordered that if the compliance was not met by that date, $250 day fine be began. They were not in compliance with May 7th and the fines began to accrue. They did change their staffing at the mall or their employees. We have Rick Jackson who's here to speak on behalf of the mall as a general manager, which was missing for a little while. They did begin working on the on coming into compliance. We still weren't in compliance approaching this past fall of 24. In October, I brought them before the board as for an imposition hearing. At that hearing, the law presented a plan to have the landscaping for auditing compliance by about Thanksgiving. So the board agreed to continue the case so that we could address an entire fine with compliance. So Mr. Jackson contacted me at the end of November, requested an inspection on 1124. For a landscape plan I have to have a planner sign off on the landscaping requirements. Not an expert on all the bushes that are involved with that. And our planner was out of town for that week. December 4th, 2024, I met with Deputy Planning Director Leslie Delmer. And Mr. Jackson, we walked the grounds and our deputy director, Delmer, was able to sign off as in compliance with that 2016 plan. So compliance was achieved. We agreed to stop the fines on the date as requested because it was just a matter of us being out of town for that week. So the fines were stopped on November 23rd, 2024. The total amount of fines is 200 days, at $250 a day, and the total fine is $50,000. Okay, so can you please state an air for coastal malls? Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right, okay, so can you please state an air for coastal malls? Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Cynthia Chavamber and I'm here on behalf of Coastal Center. Okay. We are here to seek a waiver of the $50,000 fine that has been imposed at the initial January 25th hearing that was held last year. The former mall manager, Advice the Board, that of Landscape or had been recently contracted to bring the property back to compliance with the landscaping plan. Given the testimony of the city arborist and a board member at that time, it was assumed that 90 days was sufficient to bring the property back into compliance. As a result, my client had until May 7, 2024 to complete its project. However, that timeline was set without consulting with the contracted landscaper and also did not take into account the fact that the majority of the project would have to be completed outside of planting season, which is in April and May. Despite that, the fines of $250 a day began on May 7th. And as I'm sure you are all aware, Kosoom Center is one of the largest landowners of the city. And in turn 90 days was not a realistic timeline given the magnitude of the project that needs to be completed. The daily fines continued to occur until my client was deemed compliant on November 23rd. And as mentioned, the fines now total $50,000. Section 162.09B of the Florida Statutes provides that in determining the amount of a fine if any, the enforcement board shall consider the following three factors. One, the gravity of the violation to any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation. And three, any previous violations committed by the violator. Typically fines and penalties are meant to be punitive. Of course, my client did not intentionally fall out of compliance given the recent hurricanes. Further, my client has worked diligently with this landscape burr throughout this entire period of time to bring the property back into compliance with the landscaping plan as soon as possible. My client has already spent well over half a million dollars to get back into compliance and therefore'd like to request a waiver of the $50,000 fine that has been imposed. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Are you the only one for coastal mall here that- Speaking- The mall manager, Rick Jackson's also- Okay, would you like to come up now? Okay. Okay. There's a state state your name for the record in your title. Ridge. I want to manage our rejects and thoughts. Okay. Would you like to come up now? Okay. Just state your name for the record and your title. Rejection the general manager, Coastal Center. Okay. Thank you. Just reiterating what she said. I wanted to add that bringing the property back to a 2016 plan covered seven years worth of five name storms, some degradation during those storms that wasn't re-planet. So the timeline of 90 days once we dug into it, it was really impossible. We kept finding things that weren't on that plan. So we had to keep adding more money to the pot. We did get it back into compliance. It's back to the 2016 plan. And now we have the budget and the means to keep it there. And I just wanted to put that in your ear so when you're trying to make your decision, it's been a long road. And I got here last March and jumped right into it. I got it corrected as fast as I could. Okay. Great. Great. I'm going to open up to some questions to the board to the city or to the, you know, does anybody have any questions? Go ahead. So do you have a signed contract in place and if so, how long with anyone who's going to keep the maintenance up? Yes, we have a signed contract to 2024. September, August was the first part of it. It goes for three years and then we do another three-year renewal. So we do have a good permanent landscaper in place and they have dedicated a person on site every day for us. So that means you won't see it out of compliance. You shouldn't see it out of compliance a day. OK. They're going through picking up trash, pulling weeds, everything it needs on a daily basis. Okay, thank you. Go ahead. So it's two years, pretty much in total, since there was items that needed or issues on the site. And you started in March of last year, is that for 2024? So prior to you coming in, I understand you have worked well with City and managed to get it into compliance. I can't remember now or recall from the last time we spoke, who was responsible and what happened in that prior year. So I understand what you've done since you've come in March and the issues that you've dealt with with the new contract. But I would like to have a bit of a very fresher on that previous year and here from City, from our compliance department, what their thoughts of what needed to be done and what could have been done in that first year? Well, it, book Quincy Co-compliance Manager. When I first began talking to them all about the grass in May of 23, it was, it was a situation for me where it was kind of, okay, something must, this, this will be quickly figured out, right? You don't often see them all of that size just letting the grass grow, things like that. So I began conversations with the management at the mall at the time. I know it began, someone up the corporate chain was not, near as I could tell funding the landscaping at that time. The person who was there was sort of stuck. He was trying to move the grass himself. And I initially thought this is very unusual. I'm sure someone will have an answer to me soon. Let's get this thing fixed. As we progress into the fall, I was emailing various corporate members saying, can you contact me with the plan? Let's get this thing rolling. I have an issue notice of violations yet, but you're going to make me issue notice of violations. And I mentioned you have a 2016 plan we need to come compliance with. And that'll start, we'll have to impose a timeline if I don't get one. I didn't get one. I had to issue a notice of violation, and then we brought the January hearing. Unfortunately, I was expecting someone from out of state or somewhere at the corporate level to come down and address us at that hearing to tell us, here's the plan. The representative of them all did the best he could, and that's the information that we got. I mean, that's's what happened and that brings us into January. So there were some decisions made. I know that these guys cared and wanted to get this thing done. I don't know why it was not maintained. As far as the, bring it back to the 2016 landscape plan is probably several years of neglect of those plants that, you know, allowed them to get to the state where we finally had to address it. We're very sympathetic to any hurricane and storm damage throughout town, but by then most properties around town were getting pretty well back into place. And it wasn't our interest to write a dose of violation. In this case, we just didn't get a plan and any action that we were with satisfactory. I got two things. The last one we were here, and remember that was October, remember? You said that there was a reconciliation process with corporate and you had a contract with a landscaper. They didn't know the full scope of it so you had to go back, get more money. Can you give me a timeline on that? I'm just trying to be more sympathetic to the mall's timeline. So in May of 23, that is when it was noticeable. And as I testified at the last hearing, we were just starting going through a loan extension for the property. And so we were under some tight grips by the bank, basically. So at this, it happened all at the same time, the landscaper that had been there for years, retired, sold his company. So we had to start business and to landscape to new people. Landscaper came in, gave us a really good price, unfortunately, that wasn't a full scope landscape bid, unbeknownst to us, so we signed them to a contract. They couldn't keep up with it. And we went through another landscaper during that time. I wasn't here yet. And I think that was we're on our fourth, the fourth one filing was a good one and gave us a true budget price. But I was locked into that 2024 budget based on the prior bid in 2023. That's why some of the staff was out trying to augment the landscaper and help them low and pick up trash in those kinds of things. And there were some mechanisms in that extension agreement that we found that I could request a budget increase based on the reality of the property. I finally get that done in August. And then we had extensive capital projects thrown in there to help us get into compliance faster. That's basically what happened. We were constrained by the bank due to this loan document. Gotcha. And was there any landscaping damage from the storms this or in 24 that were set you back? From Milton. We were right in the middle of our project trying to get it into compliance and we actually would have been done a little sooner. But Milton caused us another 35 grand and delayed us a little bit to get the plants. I believe our landscape had to get them from my end. How many days do you think? That was probably three weeks. Thank you. Any other questions over here? I mean, as a board we always try to, we want adequate time to cure the problem. And where do you think maybe from Bill's perspective did disconnect in that 90 day period that we kind of ruled on that it's all of sudden not realistic? I mean, is it, what do you think is the cause of that? I just think the representative at the mall had sent here just didn't have all the information I didn't even have the authority to make it happen But he was just doing the best he could with the information he got in the direction he got is speculation, but that's and I've had a lot of contact with everybody here And mr. Dax and I've tried to work together to get this stuff solved You know, compliance is our goal. So that's the feeling I got that that was the best he could do with that information. And... everybody here and Mr. Dax and I've tried to work together to get this stuff solved. Compliance is our goal. So that's the feeling I got that that was the best he could do with that information and this was you know the board did ask what how much time does the malt need and according to the person who was here to represent the malt that's how much time they needed. Chair Crowe may I add to that? Thank you. Matthew McConnell for the record. So I understand the board grants it him grant to the mall 90 days to come into compliance, but technically the mall was put on notice of being out of compliance on November 23rd, two months before the hearing even occurred, which is another 60 days. And they were also put on notice in 2016 when they got their landscape plan approved as to what was required. So while I can appreciate it took time to do this, when you talk about the gravity of the violation in this being I think the second biggest piece of property in the city of Naples, I got a bunch of phone calls. It looked horrible for a long period of time. So I just wanted to remind the board that although you granted them an additional 90 days which legally you were not required to do, right? You could have given less. They also had additional time from the moment they received notice to jump on it and based on staff's testimony, he couldn't get in contact with someone, which is not the city's responsibility. I wonder what do you think the city has invested in time-wise on this case like with the all the compliance has gone off a years? You know this compliance thing you have any idea that you know actually the man cost to the city on this violation? I didn't calculate that there it's been one of four of the last going on in almost two years that I've been involved with this. You know, probably for at least a year of that was one of my bigger concerns and spent a lot of time and I've been over there for many meetings. So I don't have an exact cost and, you know, my standpoint on this would be that I think it's in a legal proceeding like this, it's customary to give a grant a lesser, or it's acceptable certainly, just like if you got a speeding ticket, if you pay this now, we can move on. But and within a certain amount of time, I think that is a direction, but I certainly not a waiver because we do have significant costs. I mean, it would be. I imagine it would be $1,000. But more than the cost, it was more than the fine maybe. I mean, you know, right. More than the cost is also that this was a decision made to not fund a landscaping there for a while before these people were here and that decision was made and it wasn't like an overnight event. It took a long time for this stuff to degrade and by the time we couldn't even get the grass mode, which is for code enforcement, you got to moor your grass because if you don't moor your grass, we start looking closer at things. So, you know, from houses to everywhere else, that was a struggle just to get the grass mode for a while, which is that was tough for me to accept. So that's where I look at the question. I'd like to ask that same question in a little different way. What do you value the hourly rate of your department if you were to charge for your services? Would it be $200 an hour, $300? Well we don't, you know, I don't do it that way, but I mean, what would you value the value of your services? That's the first question. And second, you must have some idea of the total man hours involved in this project on your department. And what I'm trying to get at is what does our actual cost in rectifying it? We all work for free, but you know, you're paid a salary to it. Right. And your department. So can we put a ballpark on what the cost was for these violations? Well, for three hearings and a number of inspections and I mean it would put it in probably the 10 to $15,000 range at a conservative level, you know, say $100 an hour type of thing, but that's not, I mean, that's not that. But I think more than that, I think that it just says a matter of efficiency and okay, we came into compliance and to reward compliance and we can just move on from here to offer some, I don't think you have to break it down just to our costs. I think what happened there, as our city attorney said, we were getting phone calls left and right. So it's more that it affected everybody, not just us. And there's that value too. And then the fine ended up being what it was. The fine was there is, it's there as an incentive, obviously a daily fine to get people to apply as quickly as possible. I think at the end of it we have compliance. I understand that it's fuzzy, but we're trying to put it into some, you know, what is the actual cost of, or what is an approximate cost of what we've spent on this issue? It could have exceeded the volume. I mean, in some cases it does, you know, it could do that. I mean, could you, but there's a value I could say that between and do you have a comment on that? Well, I do because when I was sitting on that side at $200 an hour, I attended two meetings. There was another meeting on this. So you're looking at city attorney rate and code enforcement board attorney rate. I mean, that right there is probably $12 to $1,500. And the city is not even asking for administrative costs, which by statute we can. So that in itself is a reduction, right? So this 50,000 doesn't even include, we could actually, on top of the 50,000, which is just for fines pursuant to 162, add man costs, which in the future we will start doing as I work with staff. But I think you've heard from staff, the manpower, the site visits, the amount of calls and emails we received was a lot. But from the attorney's point of view, I think you're looking easily, based on the hourly rate, probably $1,500, just from the City Attorney's Office. Yeah. Just as a side here, don't you think it would be relevant in the future if we're going to be looking at reducing fines that have been imposed to have some perspective what the actual cost to the city was and could you keep records of time spent on a case and say we've got 300 man hours involved in this at a $100 for admin, $200 for attorneys. So where it comes up to this number. So, and let's say that number came up to $30,000 and we imposed a find and we. Well then I would my personal opinion would be, well you know somebody should cough up $30,000 we could wave 20 but don't ask us to wave 50 when we know there's cost involved. So so so members how it should work and our city attorney is new and still getting his arms around 50 million procedural things this being one of them is that you know you all have two hearings the first hearing is you guys got to get this fixed right it's finding that they're in violation and then the second hearing is inosition hearing where you say you didn't get it fixed so we're imposing our daily fine. So at the imposition hearing if the municipality wants to assess its cost of enforcement at that time that is presented by staff. You know because that needs to be put into the imposition order that you all enter. It's kind of a bit late now because imposition has already occurred. And you already imposed the fine. You've said $250. And so staff wanted to also collect cost of enforcement. That would have been the time to do that. This is really a staff indicated when it started is not a reopening of the case. And that includes staff's opportunity to offer evidence of what its enforcement is. So I just want you to keep that in mind. The time for entering evidence on all sides is done. This is more of a grace thing. The fine is what it is. It's been calculated pursuant to what you all have ordered. It's grown to what it is and they're asking you for whatever mercy you chose to do. We're trying to do that, but we need a basis to know what was invested. So we didn't, when we opposed the fine of 50,000, we didn't know we'd have to give any back or they'd be requesting to give them. You know, you don't have to. I know, but we didn't know there'd be a request. I didn't know we'd have to give any back or they'd be requesting to give them. You don't have to. No, I know, but we didn't know there'd be a request I didn't to give something back. So somebody wants something back. I want to know how much do we have invested in this? Mr. Chairman, could I? And whether the evidence was submitted or not, I don't. I mean, that's fair. That's why I brought the whole, but our costs are because it's just good for us to know mentally. I mean, our job here is to enforce the code. And I'm not sure there is a reason to mitigate. And that's, I mean, I'm just trying to struggle with a reason because, you know, we'll look at subject reasons that there's a due cause for mitigation. But Bill, as you can explain, do you feel there's a reason to mitigate this fine? Mr. Chairman, could we make a motion? Because we don't normally get into the monetary amounts of what our city has spend it in. As our lawyers just said, we can't actually do that now because all we're doing is looking at the case. Would you like to make a motion? Yes, absolutely. Then we can discuss, form that motion, might get knocked down. I move based on the testimony and the evidence and what's being put forth from what the manager has tried to do since last May. I move that the violation has been corrected, thank you, and the fine previously imposed in the amount of £50,000 to be reduced to the amount of $40,000 to take into account the work that the current manager has done. Second. Okay. We have a verse and a second. Do we want to have any comments for the votes? May I make a request? Yes. At least from the city's point of view, if it is reduced to 40,000, we would like it paid within 14 days if not, then it goes back to 50. Do you want to amend it? Yes, I amend it as Mr. McConnell's request with the wording for the payment time. All right. All right. So you want to go to a roll call vote on that motion please. Oh. Oh. Oh. What do you want to vote on already? The motion. There's no comment? Why? I thought we'd go ahead and make a comment. Oh yeah. I'm talking on my comment. Okay, I thought you were quiet today. So 240,000 was lighted by 200. So basically, you're reducing the fine to $200 a day from $250. I actually did it as a waiver to take an amount away from the whole amount, but if you was to divide it, I suppose it would come out at the same month as what you've just done. Okay. So I'm going to go back to everything I say every time we talk about fines. High fines should be around safety issues. Low fines should be around aesthetic issues. I would be inclined and knocked us to 10 grand, which is 50 bucks a day. That is my comment. Okay. Can I make it coming? Yes. I'm an agreement that it should be less than forty. When I'm hearing costs of 15 to 20,000 plus attorneys fees I'm more inclined to say 20,000. One of the ways I look at that those costs is you've got costs for external attorneys fees but for the enforcement department that's covered by tax dollars. So if they were doing nothing and everybody was complying in town, we'd get rid of them. We'd get rid of them. We really wouldn't get rid of them. I think a part of the thing too is it's a slippery slope when you reduce fines. And it was a shopping center pretty close to this one that they had an issue and they were on it. It was the bomb and it was bomb bang done. And this has been going on. So at some point we want to have a level of enforcement and bite. And I think being the largest landowner, it's a reflection on our city. And it's also the state of fairness that other people are complying and keeping their places on. I agree. So if we're show leniency to some degree for no good reason, that's what I was trying to see. Is there any reason for mitigation and code enforcement's mind? I'm open to it. But I'm not sure if there is. I mean, I'm not sure if I'd even reduce it from the 50. I mean, I'm not sure. So I hear where you're coming from. Well, if you'd like to back it back. I could always take the opposite approach and say it would have been nice instead of having their local people here, they have somebody from corporate come in here arguing for a lower fee. Because clearly corporate held them up through this whole process to begin with. That's not our problem. I understand. I'm being the devil's advocate for keeping the $50,000. Yeah, but fine. If you're in a situation where you're subject to a fine and you have a personal issue, or you're financing, or something, should that be the issue to stop giving you special treatment? No, no, it should. So special treatment got, you have to be cognizant, you know, we have to really think about fairness or something. And I was asked, Bill, in your mind, is there a reason for mitigation of this fine? And from your, because these are the guys are on it every day and they've been on it for years, working on the same. So, you know, that's what I'm trying to dig out. I have two thoughts on this. So the $250 day fine is a maximum allowed by the state statutes. So this is a good exercise when these issues come back to the board. This was sort of your direction to create a $250 day fine at that hearing. So at that time would be the time to say, no, it's just vegetation. I want a $50 day fine. And that discussion is there. At this point it is what it is aboard as it was made at that day decided to 50 a day under these terms. And that became that. Now as far as the fine, I know that code enforcement city turn and I were talking the other day, there are cities that just have a blanket reduction. So it is an acceptable practice just to reduce the fines, whether it's 10, 20%, because what helps staff here, for me, is if they have an agreeable amount or a mount pose that's less, and they just say, okay, we'll pay it within 14 days. We don't get into the leans. We have leans that it's set out there for a long time. Once you impose a fine, the only case for reduction, which sometimes people would like to have reduced, is the City Council. City Councils doesn't have the history of the case like you do. And so they're, you know, they're unlikely to really reduce those for the most part, but they hear it from the respondent, and their agenda is very busy. So if we can keep issues under jurists. do those for the most part, but they hear it from the respondent and their agenda is very busy. So if we can keep issues, you know, under jurisdiction of the code enforcement board and then, you know, if you give them just like if you had a speeding ticket, hey, if you pay it today, you'll get $150 a break, but if you want to contest it, it's going to go up to here. That's an acceptable proceeding in my mind and it is an efficient way to handle this. So under those rules, yes, I think that's the only justification I have. So. acceptable proceeding in my mind and it is an efficient way to handle this. So under those rules, yes, I think that's the only justification I have. So in your mind, because they came compliant and they were cooperative, you know, they showed concern about it, could lead us to mitigate it, define 10,000 or something. I think rationale for us to do that. I think that's a very reasonable action by the board. And they may not pay it and and that's up to them, but you gave them that choice, and that becomes part of the record. And Mr. Chair, could I say that the reason I'm not a person for reducing the fines, because we came to that decision and the fine was there, but the reason for the mitigation is twofold. One is the new manager, was a new manager, and has tried to comply. The other part was we did have the storms, so I've taken into account the storms as well. And that's how I came up with the figure of 40,000, just so you know, why I, that's smaller reduction was there. Okay. If there was any more comments, I'd go to vote on her. Okay. Okay. And just so the board is aware, of course, my client would have completed the project of the 90 days if that was possible. That's just a date. That's just a timeframe that was given to them in January. Had the former mom and your said, okay, we need actually like six months or eight months to have this be completed. And that timeline was set. Then the clock would have started taking from that date for the fines to start to accrue. Instead, they're limited to 90 days, and then that's when the time for the fees to start to accrue. And then we asked for more time. We got it until November, but the clock already started taking. So I'm just saying, if the former mom and your said we needed six to nine months to have completed and it wasn't completed by nine months later, then that fee would have started from that point on. That kind of goes back to the responsibility of the property owner though. They didn't feel the need to send proper representation to this to address this issue in January. So it's kind of important. So they started the work in January. So notice was given in November and that that mom and her paired and said he contracted with a landscaper in January. And that's when the work started. This, this mom and your started March. No, I know, and he's done, he's done a great thing and we're trying to compensate for that. Yeah. But the fact remains, the property owners has the ultimate responsibility for the maintenance of the product. Of course, and then also regarding the finance. If they had been serious about it, they would have sent somebody that could have given a more realistic, I think we had the city of Everest here. And at that meeting too, and they concurred with the 90 days. So unfortunately to me, I can't speak for those, the board, but that's kind of a move point. Well, a corporate, they're not experiencing landscaping, so I don't know if someone from higher up in corporate reveal come here and say I think what should have happened is the latsky person should have come with the mom and her and I would have known what an ideal timeline would have been. Unfortunately, that was not the case and then also just to get back to your question earlier regarding financials. Even though they had some run into some hurdles, they were still, you know, we mentioned at our last hearing that 80,000 was paid during that time. Another invoice of $57,000 was paid. So like, even though they're encountering these hurdles, they're still making huge payments to get this project completed. Property owners, responsibility. And they were, and they were trying to comply. And, you know, we're blessed to see Napoli keep landscape roads and I keep it beautiful and proper your size. If it's looking ugly, it does cause complaints and calls and issues. And this is something you kind of knew about a long time too. It was not like the 90 days and you could look deeper into it. But any other comments or anything before you go, I'll just go vote. Yeah, I'd like to say something if I can. Okay. Once your decision is made, I know the city attorney has for 14 days or it goes back up to 50K, I would request 21 days from the data received the invoice. I can't process anything in 14 days from today. All right, thank you for like, I'm gonna tell you how you feel about is that acceptable? Yeah, I think it's fine. I think so the motion maker would have made. Would you, on your motion, want to amend it to be the same time period? Yes, would the city accept 30 days and that would give time for the invoice to be sent received, which is in excess of the 21 days, with 30 days suffice? The city is fine with that. To the staff's point, we just deal with a lot of leans that remain unpaid for long periods of time. So better to give the time. So yes, I amend the motion for the 30 days for payment to be made. Okay, so it really understands the motion. You need to to repeat it 40,000, 30 days to pay it. You know, we're going to stand. Okay. Okay. I think we're ready for a roll call. Number David's in. Yes. Member Green. No. Member Fawcett. No. Member Leigh-Nay. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Nice to see you, Spar. Yes. Chair Crowley. Yes. Okay. The motion passes. Was it a five to two? Okay. Okay. Well, thank you very much for appearing. You got a $10,000 reduction. And we appreciate you coming into compliance and looking forward to going to the product. You know, Port and Economic Center for Naples, right? So it's looking good. You're getting more visitors. So we appreciate everything that all your efforts and thank you for being here. Thank you. Okay, great. Let's go to the next case. Case number 7.2, case number-0-0-990. Reduct, quest for reduction of fines, owner Sherry and Victoria Prasad, location 687, Wilk and Vellia Road. Bill Quincy, co-compliance manager of City and Naples. So we're here for a quest for reduction of fines from Mr. Prasad, the owner of the property. We did have this case in front of you in October as an imposition. This had to do with the property and in this case needed the exterior painted. In lieu of that, the owner decided to obtain a demo permit and was going through that process. The permit, the issuance of the permits when I can stop a fine or when I consider that in compliance because now you're under the construction site rules, it wasn't acquired by the date of the hearing. The board agreed to continue it until we had compliance so we can talk about the fine as a whole. We do have compliance as of today. This one will be a little bit different. I'm going to present something to you. We don't usually do, but we do have reasons and in the matter of efficiency and I think a reasonable action. I'm a lot of support to you to reduce the finer, continue the case. The owner couldn't be here. He called me yesterday to say he's out of state and can't make it back into town and time. So I talked to him for a while about it and we'll give you a little bit more details about the brief synopsis. He applied for the, this has been this house, it has been an issue for a long time so he's on the hook for something but he did it once we began our action, he did maintain the grass, did take care of it, did apply for a building permit soon after our meeting this last spring. And there was some issues outside of his control through the permit acquisition process with his contractor that delayed it some. So I'll give you the details and we can either impose a fine, continue the case or reduce it and give them a timeline there. So notification this case was achieved through mailing-in copy of notices via Certified First Class mail. Exhibits A in the year, A through E in your packet and exhibit E is a copy of the posting of the property. So this is a property now, the house is gone. You know, and this is my posting that I put. So they did, you know, the demo permit I don't believe is closed quite yet, but the property itself is gone. So we have full compliance with that. In the case was originally heard by the Code Enforcement Board at our May 23rd, 24 hearing. Had several issues about high grass and dead trees and debris and exterior surfaces and disrepair. The other issues were corrected by the compliance state and there was no penalty there. The code department does not order demo of properties, but if somebody says, well, you know, and it's a little bit common around town, we have many properties as you know that were affected by storms or have gotten, outlived their useful life, and people need to start making decisions on what to do if someone starts talking about demo. In my mind, I'm not going to have somebody do a bunch of work to a property that they're going to demo. You know, if they start talking demo, okay, well, let's get that process going and we can work through it. This property have been a bit of an eye store for a while. So I did want some, you know, actions sooner than later. the the hearing, the, you know, the, some of the paint and the fascia was sort of in disrepair there. The Board found them in violation and ordered their spawn to correct the violation within 30 days or $100 day fine would begin. So on that made the date of correction June 30th. I'm sorry, June 20th, 2024. And the demo of permit was applied for on that day, okay. So the permit was not issued, $100 a day fine began. I'm sorry, June 30th was the date of correction. The demo permit was applied for on June 20th, which began the clock. And now it takes a bit of time and I have deputant building official Tom Tucker. If you have any questions about the permit process, but I'll give you the brief just a bit there. That $100 day fine began to accrue. Our last hearing was October 24th. The permit was obtained later that day. And so the fines ran from June 30th, well actually July 1st is when we start them, till October 24th, 2024. So it's 116 days at $100 a day for a fine totaling $11,600. All right, now the house is gone, and we'll have to make sure that they comply with the vacant lot orders going forward, but the neighbors, you know, we're all happy that we have that sort of compliance. You know, just like in any case, it's not exactly a matter of how much time to me, it's not as a matter of how much time is here and there, but I could identify some real areas where there was a form missing. And then we went through the storms at the end of September when the permit was about ready to get issued, I believe the contractor had the contractor licenses renew at that time and there was a little bit of a delay there. So there was some identifier about 40 days that was pretty identifiable as outside of anybody's control or at least the homeowners control. And I was in contact with them. He was desperate to get this this permit so he did express to me if the board is willing to reduce you know those 40 days they're about so you know he wasn't starting about an exact number but there's about that many from the total which would bring our fine to $7,600 you know payable within it within 21 days he would settle this case we'd move on. And then we don't have to reschedule and bring it before council for, you know, lean reduction, anything like that. So to me, it's an efficient way to handle it. That's the story. If you have any questions about where the permit was awaiting for a bit of time, deputy building officials Tom and Tom is here. But we can certainly continue it and ask them to come back in February. You can impose the full amount or we can offer him that, you know, with the requirement that if he doesn't pay it within that short amount of time, it reverts back to the full amount. I make a motion. We reduced $7600. I've got 30 days to pay. Okay. I mean, you want to add some discussion? I'll do it with that. Yeah, I think. Give us a second. Second. Okay. Okay. We have a motion and a second. And no discussion needed on this. Pretty good. You want to say something? I just want to know what the rationale was here. He had the, his rationale was 40 days of the fine, right up his control. So we just said let's take 40 days of the fine out, and he'll agree for the difference. They were out of control because of the contractor, correct? And the students. And there's two parts of this, just like with the previous cases, you have the ability just to reduce it out of a grace and let's get compliance and you have compliance and that's a reward. And we end this matter before it becomes a lean and future issues and things like that. I bring it up in this case because I could identify a staff that there were some reasons in built into that permitting process that were outside of the homeowners control. He hired a local contractor that does a lot of demos around town. We were all expecting this permit to get issued a lot quicker than it was, but there were some, you know, we did have the storm go through. There was a form that was missing. When things like that happen, it was delayed. My recollection was that the contractor didn't have the proper licensing. Well, that's where at the end of October, at beginning of October, which is right when all the storms hit, they have to renew their license, so they can't get a permit. It was all set to be issued, the storm set, and then there was another delay in there. And that's not even outside a little bit of the contractors control and the homeowner. So I think, in this case, that $7,600 fine is reasonable. You can see on that picture, the exhibit, the house is gone. And if he doesn't pay that, the city more than recovers our costs and moves on from this. That's great. Otherwise, if he doesn't pay it, the full amount. Okay, okay. Any further for the questions? Okay, so let's go to a vote on it. Member Gates. Yes. Member Greenhall. Yes. Member Boss. Yes. Member Leigh-Anne. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Yes. Member Boss. Yes. Member Leigh-Einstein. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Member Chairspar. Yes. Careful. Yes. Okay. See you now, Miss passes. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's move to next case 7.3. Case number CEPM20202400646, owner RNC LLC, registered agent. Pensley-Lee, location 1507 from York's Drive, the violation is section 16.289, unsightly conditions. Bill Quincy, co-compliance manager of City Naples. So shift gears now we're at cases that you haven't heard before. So we'll present the case and look for a finding fact. Notification, this case achieved through mailing a copy of the violation to certified first class mail. A sign return receipt was not received and I post a copy to notice set the property on January 13th, 2025, which is Exhibit G. Exhibits A through H of your packet includes notification documents. We do have an agent for the homeowner. Here at Kentucky, at the end, I think he'll talk more about the compliance efforts versus what happened prior, which is where we're at now. I don't have a name. Don't have public comment, ma'am. I'll put on the neighbor. I'll show it. Well, that's not, this is a quasi-digital hearing, so unless you're a witness. I have a witness, sir. If you're a witness for the city or for the,. My Mr. Chair, my recommendation is that you call water and you instruct staff to continue with a presentation. Okay. Okay. We're going to continue on and please be seated. We're not going to accept that right now. So continue on This this is a case of a property and industry pair which is a violation of 16 to 89 Unfortunately, it has drawn out for a little while because of I initially started contacting the owner back in the past spring It hasn't gone to a hearing yet. We didn't we didn board attorney over the summer. And then I was scheduled for September, and that was canceled due to Haleen. And on that day, in October, we could notify them in time. In January, we still haven't quite reached for compliance, but that's what brings us here today. So the case is this. In March of 2024, I received a complaint about the state of this property. It was damaged during Hurricane Ian had not been occupied since as far as I could tell. I expect the property and found the property and violation of the city ordinance 162889. And I do testify that all pictures are about to show our true and accurate depiction of the violation on the days and times in which they occur. So I look at the property, exhibit I, there's a garage door that's still in that state. It's hard to tell in the picture, but it's on an angle. You can see there's some materials on the roof that are a little bit loose. The shutters are coming off a bit exhibit J. As you approach the front door, you can see through the house and clear plane view some structure, which I guess is a lani and some furniture and things in disarray through the yard. I haven't been able to view this property from a legal spot anywhere else in the back. Exhibit K. So that's the front door. You can see there's a shutter missing. There's some broken pots. The soft it is starting to sag a bit up there above the front door. The property is in need of some serious attention. So I contacted the property owner and said that this is going to require extensive maintenance to bring this up to code. You need to start making decisions on what your actions, what you want to do with this property. After a few days he decided that he's leading towards demoing the property, which is acceptable. Let's get the process started. We didn't get quite as, quite as started as quickly as I would like, so he issued a notice of violation. May 3, 2024, with the compliance state of May 12, 2024. 2024. And that was to clean up some of these issues. So the property is remained in such a that condition ever since. A demolition permit was submitted to the building department on May 15th of 2024. Since we did not hold those hearings and the permit was not issued, we, you here today. So 16289 of our code of ordinances is our property and disrepair ordinances requires that we're not allowed to have properties and disrepair, you know, let them jump into the beret on the site. So at this time, unless the respondent has any comments of like the finding effect that a violation does exist exist of 16 to 89. I have to quote a ordinances. Okay. Okay. I will hear what you have to say. Yeah, my name is Arche de Vainer. Okay. For the record, we came up and may apply for the permit, the Molution Permanent. Our company never done any demolitions and napoles at all. We based in Charlotte County and we did a lot of demolitions there. So we did cut with significant issues, such as we have to do specific paperwork and applications, not same as Sir Soto County or Charlotte County. And plus, of course, we got two hurricanes came up again to the play. But today we talk with Tom and we finally agreed that it's the demolition permit. It will be issued as soon as we complete the construction fence. and all of the paperwork and all of the notes to the neighbors and everything being done already. So, you know, it's code manager, we need to find a finding effect and we can talk about what the remedy will be. If so, we have a finding effect. That's pretty clear. Of the violation 1689. All right. And then we'll go ahead and sign on for. When are a team of motion for finding a fact that this is a violation? Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the case, I moved at the board to find that the condition is described by the code enforcement officer in the notice of violation and that this hearing existed on the date's time and the place alleged. And that the condition is described constitute a violation of the section. What was the section code? 16-289. 16-289 of the code of ordinances of the city of Naples. Okay. Motion is been made. Do you have a second? Second. You have a second. Okay. Discussion. I have a question. Okay, a question. You have questions or a discussion? I have a question. Yeah, I just had a question. So this demo permit has been active since May 15th? It's been a long time. No, we've been going through it and adding some additional paperwork that it has to be done, right? So there, so this is, it's a new hearing. So right now what I'm asking for is a finding effect that a violation does exist. And then we can, because the board could say, well, now that house is fine. Okay, no violation and then nothing else matters. If we find a violation, then we can talk about what their remedy is. That's the role hold of the notice. Because if you have any questions about the status of the house. Okay. Yeah, that's good. Member Davidson? Yes. Member Greenwald. Yes. Member Foxon. Yes. Member Leigh Dutt. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Vice Chair Spar. Chair Cole. Yes. Okay. That passes unanimous. So we have finding a fact. Now we can move to. So we have finding a fact now that he's moved to. So as we've discussed, this house, they did apply for a demolition permit. We're all hopeful that this permit, there's, it's been a struggle getting this thing issued, not on the fault of the city. That their contractor chosen by the owner is new to the city and does not know a process. I feel for the neighbors, this is frustrating for me as it is for them. Because I would like to see more than this issue with the construction fence around it and addressed. And so we're, the owner has decided they want to pursue demo. I mean, they could have fixed this up. That would have been the other remedy, but they have a contractor here who wants to demo the property, which is a permanent solution. But we want to, it's not our role to tell them how to do the demo at all. But once they get that demo permit, we can, this will end this code violation, and they'll have to fall under the parameters of the demo permit. I have Deputy Billing Fischeltam Tucker here. I think we're very close so the remedy will be to nail down a timeline that that permit has to be, or the violations have to be corrected or fine, will begin. Okay, now just one would be questioned. As a new company and Cairo, how long does it take them to get licensed off in properly? We would write a license. Yeah, okay. And everything's not everything's a place for- Apply it for back in May. So, I mean, you know, the- There's no- The government should go pretty quick. There's not- There's not- complicated but there's been a lot of things there and you know we want to make sure you know Tom deputy building Facial Tom Tucker and I have both talked to everybody tried to get them moving on the correct page. We still haven't got everything we need yet. But the key is now let's get a construction fence up, get the proper paperwork in there. I think we're in agreement that within 30 days, there should be no reason why that demo permit should not be applied. The last notes was sent yesterday and I talked with Mr. Tom today in the morning and we agreed that it has to be past 14 days for owners to get replied back if they want to get the monitoring for nine. So it seems like you're on top of this. Yes, yes we are. Yes, we are. It's going well and so your recommendations for this time period and all this. So my recommendation is, well given them time to finish off this building permit, but there are notice that this permit needs to be obtained and you're on further notice that follow the terms of your building permit and make sure that the neighbors are satisfied and make sure that you do this correctly. So with the have a they're missing a letter that's going to take another 14 days to get a response and they have to get their construction fence permit. So within 30 days there's no reason why they should not be able to get this permit. So, 30 days is an adequate time period, we're not getting here the next week. I mean, that's not it. You know, it's your recommendation on that. My retic- taking that into account since this has been dragging on so long and they have maintained the grass but that's starting to get out of control now. That was very little done to it to sort of keep it looking nice as a $200 day fine. If after the after three days- After three days. The violations are not corrected. Okay. We'll appreciate your recommendation. Okay. Can I say something for record? I will ask probably for 45 days edition. I mean, not 30, 45 just because of that 14 days extension that we have to wait now for the neighbors to reply. Yeah, we can do this for a year. So I get all six out. So, so. the neighbors to the plot. No, we can do this for a year. So I'll call it a second. So he's asking for a need of 45. Do you agree with that premise? Just, let me just screen to 30. I'll go 35 days and that's it. That's as far as my recommendation. I mean the main thing is we get this thing done done correctly. No, absolutely frustrating in the neighbors. But you know we do we wish to give them time but they yeah it's been plenty of time given to get this thing done and it's now it's on. Okay is any questions the board had? Do you own the property? No so Where the contractor who's gonna do the contractor? You're out of Charlotte County. Yeah This is probably question for mr. Tucker When you said that they try to apply for a permit in May. They did apply on May 15th. So can we get the background time of what's happened between May and now, given my understanding on what's in the room with getting a simple demo permit? Okay. Let me get you caught up to speed your recording. That would be helpful. The permit right now just finished its permit review today. Okay, all the reviews have been approved as of today. The problem they had was getting the proper notifications to their correct addresses. Okay, when you do a demolition, you have to send out notifications to adjacent properties and any property within 100 feet. So in notification is for demolition, any adjoining properties have to be offered inspection and the monitoring. That's always a standard for the demolition or pile driving. contractoror had a little bit of problem figuring out how to get these notices sent out correctly. So I've been working with a contractor probably for the last two months. All right, trying to get this corrected. All right, so we finally got what we needed to get this permit ready for issuance. There's a condition on the permit that a construction fence needs to be. You know, you need to submit for your permit, get it reviewed, get it approved, get your fence permits sent out, you know, get it installed. It has to be inspected. I talked to the contractor today and I said, you need to go ahead and get your, you know, your permit submitted ASAP. It's not a long review. That permit can be done within a week's time, all right? What he's on the timeline right now is when you submit these notification letters to us and we look at the date that you sent these out. It's 14 days from the date that that notification was sent out that we have to hold that permit. That gives the adjacent properties that proper time to respond to the offer of inspection and monitoring. After the 14 days, we'll get you the permit. So I don't see any reason why this can't be done in 30 days Yeah, but quick question so after that 14 days the permits issued How as long as the fence is up and has been inspected as long as the fence is up and it's been inspected the contract It can start right then on demo while there's one more condition that they have to have a pre-demo And what they do is they contact the building department when they're ready to start this demo. We send out a compliance inspector. He's going to go out there and check and make sure that the fence is still in order. The silt fence is in place. They have a watering source. And they have stabilized access to the property. All right. So these are conditions that we go out and take a look. And they're not hard to meet. All right, so these are conditions that we go out and take a look and they're not hard to meet in one side inspections. and they have stabilized access to the property. All right, so these are conditions that we go out and take a look and they're not hard to meet. Um, and once that inspection is completed, we'll issue the permit. And just real quick, just to ask them how long does that process usually take before? Now they requested same day inspection. Okay. Great. Any other? I have a question that's just slightly different and you may or may not be able to answer and I'm just curious to know for myself is once that fence is put up, how long does it typically, does the demolition permit require them to get that demolished? Is there a time limit? No, there's no time limit. As soon as that fence is installed, they can call for an inspection. The inspection will be done the next day. Once that's passed, and we have our demo pre-demo inspection, permits can be issued the same day. But how long does the permit last so they have to demolish it within three days? We generally are demo permits given 30 days. Oh, okay. Thank you. So that'd be useful for perhaps. It's takes like between four to five days to them on the public. It's useful for people who's listening to know how long it's going to take to get to the end of the process maybe. Could I make a motion? Yes. Okay, no more comment. I'll give you one second. I just have one question for the contractor. You have the authority of the property owner to be here today. Yeah. Thank you. I just want to learn, I've explained to the contractor, you know, trying to understand, you know, the concerns of the residents, okay, with this property. So I put my time in to help these contractors sometimes get to the finish line. And I offered a team, I said, you know, you let me know as soon as you get that fence permanent in All right, and we'll see what we can do because there's only going to be one review required All right, so I can do the review We can just do the permit same day So this can be done very quickly so we can get this house demo Okay fantastic. Thank you. Okay. That is no I just help Just help me clear this up the property owners not here. Contractors representing the property owner is that correct? What if whatever we rule on today doesn't comply? Who is the contractor that's going to pay the fee or it's a property? It's the property owner The violation is always against the owner of the property right and you know part of what you're going to see in your new procedure manuals which which will be coming to you on your next agenda, addresses this topic which have a concern on people coming here and arguing cases who are not in fact the owner. Right. Arguably, it's the unauthorized practice of law, which is a felony in Florida. So I intend to review what the city attorney, his viewpoints on it, but I think I'm going to be proposing to you if nothing else that some formal written affidavit from the actual owner that this person can speak on my behalf as though I were there, but even there, if they drift into making legal arguments, they're still representing somebody else and they're not really supposed to. So you're right to raise that question of why is the owner not here. And I already knew the answer. I just wanted to hear an attorney say it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I got a question. Okay. This is for you guys. So as a very high taxpayer in the city of Maple, is it resident? Are residents that are directly affected? They're not allowed to speak at these? There's no, we're not allowed to let them vote. Is that not normal? So, new to me. Why don't you let me talk about this. I'm your legal counsel. Okay. Setting. So, so you sit as a quasi judicial body. And, and so it operates much like a court case operates. So the city goes and it presents its case. If the city wishes to call witnesses, it can. Then the owner goes. If the owner wishes to call witnesses, the owner can. If neither side wishes to call a witness, both sides have put on what they feel you need to do to make your decision. It's not an opportunity for members of the public, even though completely understanding their impact, that we have a resident here who's impacted by this case. But because you sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, the evidence you take needs to be put forth to you by the two parties that are arguing the case. Hopefully that answers the question. They have to be witnesses of one party. So clearly- So clearly you didn't need the witness because it's a fact that the place is- I mean we have a finding effect and right now we're working on the only possible best case solution is what. The owner's been proposing to me all along to tear the place down. We've got a plan if not, daily fines kick in. So there's a timeline that we've imposed and we gotta get this thing going. I appreciate owners and people concerned about their community coming in. But unless you're a witness, that the city needs you to be a witness. Yeah. The picture is starting to get pretty good. Ma'am, you can't keep streaming from out there. I should have taken the test. My recommendation is not, don't dialogue with the audience. Okay. Okay. Great. So any other comments? So we'll go to a motion. Motion. Well, no, you're still not ready for the motion. How do we know he's going to do this stuff on Carson? I'm just going to throw things out. I don't know if it's going to happen. Please, please, this is, you can't interrupt it. You're welcome to sit there peacefully and observe, but if you object, if you create disturbance, we're not asked to remove you. But you cannot disrupt our, our, our, our. The question is, no one should talk on the map before I'm on the, he has been there. Ma'am, please. Mr. Chairman, if we make the motion could we then do the discussion from the motion? That might be like, oh, thanks, what do you think? He has one thing before your motion and then we'll go to the next. My suggestion was exactly that. Okay, great. So have the motion and then we'll just go to that right. That's what we're trying to do. Let's do it. Let's do it. I move that this board having considered the gravity of the violation, the efforts that has been made to comply and any other relevant violations order that the respondent to correct the violations within 30 days from the date of rendition of this order to correct. And if the violation is not corrected within such period of time, a fine of $200 per day be imposed for each day thereafter the violation has not been corrected. And the board reserves jurisdiction to consider further evidence as to whether the violation has been corrected. Second. We have a second. Okay. We have a motion in a second. Any quick comments we go right to will go. Yes. I got a comment. Okay. You guys got to tell me the answer to this. Can we include an emotion that if this house is not torn down by the end of the permit time, what she said was 30 days, that something else had kicks in and happens because... So what can possibly happen is... I have an answer. That's a permits issued. You don't do anything. I have an answer. And they say, well we couldn't get our excavator down here. So we're just gonna, you can, there's a process called re-issuing it and re-issuing it, re-issuing it. And from the point of view of the neighbors who were affected, is there anything we can do to not only tie the permit getting issued, but the house getting torn down? I don't know. The code board can have the authority to tear it down. But with the construction process, there will be a fence around it, which isolates it from the neighbors. If they do not follow through with the permit, and that permit is valid and the structure still exists They'll be back here as soon as I possibly can for repeat violation Okay, so that's what we have to follow you know, so that's all you do yeah Okay, and I do want to make it clear for the record the city is not requiring demolition for compliance period But demolishing it gain compliance, however, our request is for the unsightly conditions of the home. Understood. Understood. Okay, great. All right, so let's go to a vote on the motion. Members, sorry. I just wanted, because of what we just talked about last meeting, and I do agree with your legal counsel in that when you are though we're not imposing fines I would like the motion to include any potential administrative costs as well. Yes, so I add those words to this motion for the administrative cost. Okay. The men. Mended. So we'll vote on the men in motion. Member Davidson. Yes. The men. Mended. So we'll vote on the amended version. Member Davidson. Yes. Member Greenwald. Yes. Member Pawsson. Yes. Member Landay. Yes. Member Mayer. Yes. Vice Chair Sparrow. Yes. Chair Crowley. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 10 minutes break. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We're going to have a short 10 minute break and come back to our next case. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Okay, great. Welcome back everybody. We're going to go right to 7.4 case numbers, C-E-R-E-N-T-2-0-2-5-003-2, repeat violation honor Andrew Messick and violation, owner Andrew Messick. And O'Donard Messick. 3111, Leeward Lane. Violation section 58-142, uses permitted. And we'll go right to the city. Bill Quincy, co-compliance manager of city and Aples. We're here regarding a repeat violation of city of Ayrdance 58-142 at 3111, Leeward Lane, and the R115 zoning district. Notification, this case was achieved through Senate copy of the notices via first class and certified mail. We did not receive a return receipt and a copy of the notices posted at the property on January 13th, 2020-25, which is Exhibit D. And all notifications and documents are included in your packet as exhibits A through E. I don't know if we have a respondent present. Are there 31, 1, Leeward? No. I do testify that I'll picture from the show or to an active depiction of the violations on the days and times in which they occurred. On January 7th, 2025, our office received a complaint of increased activity. People coming going at 311, we were laying from the Moring's Neighborhood Association. We checked the ads. They felt like there were people that were from out of town using the property. We checked the ads to see if there were any advertisements showing this property is available for less than 30 days out there on the web. And our coordinator, Vanessa Savado, she is tasked with proactively scanning and looking for these Airbnb and VRBO Vads and flip key ads for compliance. She did find an Airbnb ad, which is Exhibit F. And they're in the highlighted section, so it's a minimum stay for four days. This property had been in front of the board for the same violation in February of 2024. At that time, three properties owned by the same owner to a rural harbor and this one. We're brought in front of the board for violations of our transient lodging and in effect our use has permitted residential zoning district. So for those of you, you know, we have been a little while since we've gone through this and for our new members, the way our transient logic, our short-term rental law works is that we have a definition of transient logic facility and essentially that states that if a property is used as a rental for more than three times per year for less than 30 days, it becomes a transient lodging facility. And part two of that is if it's held out to the public or advertised as a property available to rent for less than 30 days, then it becomes a transient lodging facility. Transient lodging facility is a use of a property. And the R-150 zoning district which this property is in, the only permitted uses are single family residences and accessory structures to those residences. Given that this was a repeat violation, we have talked to the last time, this case is proper for you, We sent an attorney. We have talked to him about these properties occasionally over the last year. But given that we had a complaint and found an ad that was known to be in violation, we sent a notice of repeat violation. And that was on January 7th, 2025. And the violations to remove all the required action was to remove all advertising shown the properties of over less than 30 days and also to attend this hearing. I have not heard from the attorney or the property owner in this matter. Throughout the next several days Vanessa checked the internet and was monitoring the ad and she was able to see it and it's that condition for several days. However on January 14th it was noted that the minimum stay was changed to a 14-night minimum, which is exhibit H. On January 15th, we had internet issues at the city, so we did not check it. The next day it was checked was January 16th, and it was shown to be in compliance with a minimum stay of 30 days. So at the semilectifying effect, that a violation of section 58142 uses permitted, that exists in our 115 zoning district. Okay, great. Let's, and there's no one here from the property, representing the crop here, right? Correct.. I make a motion to there's a finding a fact for this violation. Okay. I just have one clarifying question. We went through this last year and there was going to be a fire call an additional measure for the repeat violators that would be an automatic something. Like so that they would just keep playing this cat in the mouse game. Well, nothing is automatic. It's still at the board's discretion, but it does allow for the finest. There is a trigger. Well, there's two. Yes, a really important, a repeat violation, and this is for all of us. A repeat violation is very important. So after we have a finding a fact on an issue, if that violation reoccurs that same owner within five years at any property within the city, that same violation, then the statute allows that the fines will start that the day that it is witnessed by a code official. Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. Yeah, so that and the fines could double. So instead of finding the facts so we could discuss it. And the fines could double. Right, yeah, so those two things are important. So we got a motion for and we have a second. We have a second. Okay, let's do a roll call vote on that. I'm sorry, I'll take a member. I'm sorry, here. Member Davison. Yes. Member Green, motion. Member Fawcett. Yes. Member landing. Yes. Member mayor. Yes. Vice chair's far. Yes. Chair Croll. Yes. Member Green, motion. Yes. Member Fawcett. Yes. Member Landon. Yes. Member Mayer. Yes. Vice Chair Sparrow. Yes. Chair Crowley. Yes. Okay. It's unanimous. Passes the finding of fact. Okay. Now we can go into discussion on the penalty phase. I make a motion. We find them the max. Okay. Okay, I'm one that's alwaysient but repeat they know. Yeah, they know. Yeah, that I mean it's troubling when you see somebody gaming, you know, but let's hear Bill's recommendation. Okay, Bill Quincy, Co. Plants Manager, the yeah, it's transient lodging and short-term rentals throughout our city is something that is, we take very seriously. It does, that certainly is detrimental to the quality of life and the city is wants to be a residential city. And we are strict about these cases. So I am agreement with the board's discussion there. The only question I guess in this, you know, attorneys and everybody can weigh in. So we're able to identify the eight days over the weekend of the 11th and 12th. I can't say yes or no. You know, that those, I didn't visibly see or Vanessa didn't visibly see the ads. But there was a continuance there across. So whatever the legal determination of that is, the total including those days would be eight days. Eight days at, 250. So, go back to 500. But, could I ask, did you put into the record to satisfy the repeat definition, the case and the date that the board previously found them in violation? Yeah, it is part of the packet. I can we have exhibit F is the conclusion of law from the last hearing. Thank you. Is there? But January 7th. January 7th is where we first saw this property in violation. There's no way to go back to December 24th. No. November 24th because nobody was monitoring it. I mean, we can't testify that that's what it was. I mean, no, we can't. If it's on the internet, there's a thing called the way back, I think it's called. There's, yeah, there's ways you can go and see what did the internet look like on a given day back in time. it may or may not pick up this listing. But we're here today, I think what you're here to testify to is you and your staff monitored from day one to day eight. I think it is. So in terms of proving today, staff is saying we can prove eight days. And to stay after that you guys know. The recognition is eight days at 500 dollars. Yes. Now, I'll give you a question. I was just, I just want to, the ad is just ad controlled by the owner. Or is there a agent involved? Well, people always say that Airbnb, you know, a lot of times people say, yeah, well, the Airbnb changed it on us. Well, I mean, you know, I've had an Airbnb listing not here and it never changed. And so I don't know. I'm not the Airbnb or how that adds, but if it was me and I knew that my property was under scrutiny, I certainly would make sure. As often I could that it wasn't there. I don't know how it's changing. So I do a lot of this whole vacation rental thing with my firm and other clients, municipal clients. So Airbnb is like any other platform. It serves the customers that log into it. And so sometimes you're the owner. And sometimes if you're sort of a big broad business and you own multiple properties, you hand it over to a manager. But at the end of the day, it all comes back to owner is responsible for what goes on and his or her property. And so if they've handed it over to an agent, they need to get up in that agent's face and say, why did you do this? Why did you change this? You just cost me money. All right, it's pretty clear by letting my money. And legally, you can't go back in time on that snapshot computer thing you talked about. No, legally you can. And that's why I brought it up for future cases. It's staff may want to explore doing that. But in this case, they didn't. And so what they're here for today to present a case is only the eight days So you can you maybe show them how to do that? I think they probably can figure it out but we can Do we know that Okay, great I would like to comment that The way going back way back, whatever's called, is a great route to take because what we have to take into account here is that this vacation home is for 10 guests. So whatever fine we put on today is a drop in the ocean, prepared to what has been made, even in that short period of eight days. So I know this is a book for everybody in Naples that the the monies that can be made far out way what we can do. So anything that we can do as a sitting to... I know this is a book for everybody in Naples that the monies that can be made far out way what we can do. So anything that we can do as a city to make sure that capturing all those days would be wonderful news to everybody. Well, and I do want to not to give our poor city attorney a heart attack or whatever, but I do want to point out, under Florida law, the legislature has given you various powers. And those powers include subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpoena subpo various powers. And those powers include subpoena evidence to its hearings and subpoenaing records. And so I think that in a case like this, if staff feels that violations are likely going on for a longer period, but maybe they have a hard time proving it or whatnot, is maybe staff approaches you and asks you to issue a subpoena before it brings forward its case. And then that subpoena would have the force of law. So again, that's something that manager would work with the city attorney on because that would be asked for through the staff, but it is a tool that code enforcement force are given under state law to issue subpoenas. So, Airbnb records could be subpoenaed. Yeah. Well, that's pretty clear cut. So I think, um, may I go ahead? Was there a motion made? Not yet. Okay. Um, that point, I appreciate that. What I'm used to doing, because I'm very familiar with Airbnb as well, and there's actually, when you log into the back door, there's a calendar that the owners or the agents can see on what rentals that have occurred. So if the board would indulge the city's request that as part of the fines, part of the finding effect and the imposition of fines that the property owners also required within 15 days from the date of the order to supply the city with their rental logs from Airbnb. Okay, that can be motion. Across all properties or just this one? Just the one that you're hearing today. I don't know that. But the fines could, somebody said something about, um, it'd be a blanket across any property that this, so if this gets recorded, the lien is across all the property that you own. But today we're only imposing. Just for the question. Mr. Chairman, I'd make that motion. Okay, let's go. But we need to repeat what he said or the clerk has it in the record. So all of these issues, all of your orders get reduced to writing and then the chair will sign. Perfect. The order, the motion I have is that it's required within 15 days to supply the rental logs from Airbnb. For the sub, for the sub-dare property. And the eight days at $500 a day. Yeah, that was not possible. That was not possible. Oh, that's not possible. We got the motion. Okay. The request have to include rental logs going back a certain time. I think the city's position is just proof of rentals for 2025. Because the way Airbnb works is they usually have rentals two, three, four months out. So I want this calendar year of rentals from Airbnb's website. So not looking at the fourth quarter of 24. No. Okay. Okay. Is there a Gweba motion? Yeah, I stand by the motion that I presented with the additional words that's been put in that. And separate from the motion, I think this is something for us to look up for future motions and we'll be able to go further back in time. Thank you. Okay, so to clarify the motion again, it's eight days at $500 and with the stipulation of the records request. Okay, everyone understand that? But... Do we? Do we? with the stipulation of the records request. Okay, you're round to stand that? But, and the purpose of that is to impose even more fines if we find the records. Is that the intent? Once we get to, I think we have comments at the end, I can address what the city's position is, but I also don't want to show the city's cards in a public hearing. I prefer to just receive that and act accordingly. It's an option we have in the future to you and learn more about that. Okay. So can I just clarify then what you're saying is we do impose the sentence, we do impose the eight days or would it be better for city to not do the eight days? ask for the centre. We do impose the eight days. Or would it be better for City to not do the eight days ask for the further information and bring it forward and not quite sure about how that process works? The City's position is this is a repeat violation and pose them for the eight days that we have evidence for and then in addition to the payment provide us with the rental log from Airbnb. Okay. Would you like me to read the motion in Poland? Does everybody understand the motion? We have to be- We're very understanding. We're going on. Thank you. Okay, so no further discussion. Let's go to our vote on it. Anybody second? I need a second. Oh, yeah, sorry, I had a second. No, I'll use second. Yeah. Let's go to a vote. Member Davidson. Yes. Member Greenwald. Yes. Alternate, sorry. Member Bosset. Yes. Member Landy. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Vice Chair Sparrow. Yes. Okay. That passes unanimous. And we'll just keep moving here. to case 7.5. Number. Okay, that passes unanimous. And we'll just keep moving here. To case 7.5. Number CEPM202402931, owner, news incorporated location 850, catch drive, violation section 58-74. Good afternoon, Chair Cole and Board members. My name is David Jerome, quick compliance officer for the City of Naples. We're here regarding case CEPM 2024-02931. I do wanna ask you if you could hear 7.6 as well at the same time. The reason being is that is the same owner and there are combating properties with the same violation. So basically the pictures that you're going to see is the same and encompasses both properties and is for the same issue. So I think the city's position is we're going to give a presentation that we're also going to adopt into the record for 7.6. I don't know if your legal council has any issue with that but it's just an interest of time. That would be an appropriate procedure. Okay. Notification was achieved through mail of notice via first class and certified mail. A return receipt was received. The property was posted on 113. That's to exhibit eight through I. There is no respondent at this moment here. I do testify that the pictures that will be true and accurate the picture of the violation in the date and times. The violation occur. We received our office received the complaint regarding the violation of section 50-74 of the code of ordinances. I attempted to make contact with the property owner. I couldn't find any phone numbers or names and properties that I could go and request information regarding the properties. The notice violation was sent on 11, 8, 2024. Sorry November 8, 2024. With the required action, given the respond in 30 days to comply. The data compliance was set for December 7th, 2024. Compliance was not achieved, shown on sorry, it's the exhibit I. The conditions of the property right now, as it is, is missing the buffer necessary that is required for so that the neighboring properties are not looking through this property as it sits right now. The notice of hearing was sent on December 11, 2024. Again, no response to that. on January 13th, when I was posting the property, I came across a landscaper that was doing work at the property. And I asked if they had contact information for the property owners. And what they told me was that the bank across the street was asking them to maintain the property. So it prompted me to find out why is the bank interested in this property, instead of sure enough, they are owned by the same property owner. So I took my notices over to the bank and I talked to the manager, the bank manager and asked her, please have somebody contact me regarding this case. Still a week went by nothing. Until yesterday afternoon, I got a phone call from a facilities manager that was coming down from Orlando to meet me here today prior to this meeting. They do want to work on getting this property taken care of, the two properties, 850 catch, drive, and 29ier a drive. So at this time I just wanted a finding of fact that the violation does exist and I just need that to proceed. Could you go through the violation? Well, more than 75%. Sure, so the violation is. It's the landscape buffer, not 75% opaque, when view horizontally at three feet above ground level? The neighboring properties across the street are able to see through these hedges. Do we have a satellite picture that shows what is this? Sure, Mall or? No, it's just two vacant lots. Or just a parking lot? It's a parking lot right now, yeah. These are trees. It looks like trees. I had you. Well, the next hatches are just like a like a sand. It's some ficus trees that used to be there. So it's a head jack ruin to a tree? Right. And at some point, you know, it used to have enough cover. And just through time has been degraded. Is staff handing out something that's not in the right? Yes. So Vanessa's handing down. Make us exhibit. Exhibit J and K. One is a picture of the aerial from property appraiser and the other one is a picture of today taken by me of the conditions of the properties. Where's the bank? The bank would be to the right of the property of 2955. It's actually across the street on off of Riviera. It's first citizens bank. Do we know the current zoning of the property? No, I don't. It's a multi-family residential area. Is there an issue with the parking lot as well with all the cracks? No, the property is clean. There's nothing really in a bad shape. We don't know the history of, I don't know the history of this parking lot. I just know that the church uses it for access parking, but that's a block to that. So the issue really here is a un-maintained hedge that grew into a treaty. Correct. And now it doesn't serve the barrier functioning. Correct. All right. Does there be any questions on this pretty clear cut? No. Okay. So we could give them a finding of fact. It was, I mean, if I want to do a finding of fact. I moved to find that the conditions exist. So I come. OK. We have a second. And I guess we could go right to a roll call. Oh, good question. Chair Crowe, I don't know if you want to ask. I don't know if we did, but is the property owner here? I'd ask, there's nobody here. Yeah, there's nobody here. There's no right here. Yeah. And did we have to admit this? Did we put this in the record as well? These pictures? The cities were questioned. Is that the first one was exhibit J? The second one was exhibit K. We would like to admit those into the right. Okay. So be it. Okay. I guess we're ready for roll. Member Davidson. Yes. We would like to admit those into the right. Okay. So be it. Okay. I guess we're ready for roll. Member Davidson. Yes. Member Greenwald. Yes. Member Fossett. Yes. Member Landon. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Vice Chair Sparrow. Yes. Chair Crowley. Yes. Okay. The funding in fact passes unanimously. Now we'll go to the second phase here. Sure. Bialmendations. Yes, okay, the funding effect passes unanimously. Now we'll go to the second phase here. Sure. I'm- My recommendation is seeing that I've had spoken with the manager for the facilities and he has, he's assured me that they can start working on this property right away. He was not aware that this property belonged to the bank because he is the northern facilities manager for all the properties up north. The southern property of Florida was not his and he was just handed the test to take care of this issue. He is, you know, in agreement that the property looks terrible right now and he wants to assure the residents, you know, that are subject to this view that the bank is going to do everything in their power to get this thing resolved as soon as possible. Now they do have to install irrigation and work through that but they have a contract already in line and they just want to get it started. Okay. Do they need any planning approvals right now? No. I talk to the planning department and there is no permitting need required. And how much time? You'd absolutely need a perm up. Yeah, permitting for planning. For planning? For irrigation? Yes. For the irrigation? Yes, I'm sorry. Yeah, no irrigation there. Yeah, they're thinking about putting a battery operated irrigation system obviously they have to turn on the water back to the properties but that's not they're going to do it. Okay, so they need a permit for the irrigation system. Yes. This is in the city and April, right? Yes. They're going to need a backflow system on the water meter. They're probably going to need an updated survey. Yeah. All that comes. It's going to take 90 days to get all that done. Yes. So what kind of time for you? We're going to agree with you that it's going to take some time for this to get addressed. Okay. So what kind of recommendation are you saying in the end for time? Yeah. 90 days would be feasible for them. And thereafter, what do you recommend if it's not in compliance? If it's not in compliance, $100 per day. Okay. If it doesn't come in compliance. Okay. All right. So you heard their recommendation. You know, we can move to comments here and. Yeah. Yeah. So the permitting process in and of itself 90 days. Right. I couldn't tell you that. What?'m saying is that it could take up to 90 days. Just for the permitting. Because they're extremely backed up, they're extremely busy. If you submit something and it gets rejected and then you have to send in what you're saying saying is 90 days is your estimate for the? That's my worst case scenario. Okay, you know, the problem by 90 days. It's not going to get done if they don't have a plan. I never said that. So 90 days is not realistic to have this thing in compliance. I mean, sure. It a hazard situation, so we could extend it even further. Could you, could, but if we give them night, what we don't wanna do is be unrealistic, then come back here and then Churnio, and it's five or double in, and we want to be realistic in what we do. So if 180 days, after that, whatever we want, that's kind of guidance we need from you guys. Yeah, you know, if this takes money, is that going to work? Mr. Chair. I think this is a six month project. It takes all this takes time. Yeah, you know, and you're right. We're just going to be re-hearing this why they didn't get it done because we didn't give them enough time to begin with. I'll look forward to our council here. I think that maybe you all are getting astray. The violation is that there is not enough foliage. Right. Not that there's no irrigation. So getting hung up on finishing an irrigation project, you can install foliage and still not be done installing the irrigation. You can't put the foliage in without the irrigation system. Well, you can. And then you... Oh, it's just going to die. No, you temporarily water it with a local means. But I guess the point that I want to make is, staff is testified that a representative came here today to talk to staff. Yet that representative for whatever reason didn't deem it worthy to hang around to talk to you all and to ask on his own behalf how much time he needs. And so you're sitting here bargaining against the city by saying let's give him half a year, give him what staff is asked for. If it takes too long, they start accumulating a fine, and then they need to come here and say and ask for a fine reduction and explain to you why they couldn't come here today to ask for what they really need. I mean, I think it's a situation where you're giving them so much grace. Why? The others have responded, agreed that he hates their end. He did. Okay. Okay. point taken, you know, all we can go by is with the device. Thank you. Yeah. Somebody want to make a motion. You want to make this? 90 days and $100 after that. That's a correct violation. A hundred second. Okay, so we have a motion of 90 days and $100. And we have a second. Any other comments? We'll go to a roll call. Okay, let's go to a roll call. Member Davis. Yes. Member Green Washington. Member Fawcett. Yes. Member Landay. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Vice Chair Sparrow. Yes. Okay, passes. You have us. Okay. So we'll move right to the next case, which is the same owner. 7.6. Case number or CEPM is 202-402934. And since the cases were presented jointly, you can simply move to make the same exact two motions that you just made. I move to the same exact two motions. Are you sure I can do it? Okay. Let's go to a Roth roll call vote. I agree. It's okay with that. So you are currently doing a finding effect for the second for 7.6? Yes. Same finding. Same finding. Same. We're going to do two motions. I guess we have two motions, right? You don't legally have to, but apparently that's your tradition. Can we do a combination of both right now? Yeah, you could just make the final. So the boat's gonna be on the defining effect and the same healthy phase from the previous case. In aggregate of 200. 100 NH. Well, it's a hundred NH. No, but it's the teeth. It's 100 on the second one. Okay, so it's $100 on the second one. 90 days, $100. Member Davidson. Yes. Member Green. Yes. Member Fawcett. Yes. Member Landy. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Vice Chair Spar. Yes. Chair Crawl. Yes. Okay. That pass is unanimously. That concludes that one. 7.7. Case number C, P, M, 202, 402, 908. Owner. 512 Mass Ab Properties Corporation. Mr. Stewart Rothman. First Cambridge Realty. Location 531 Fifth Avenue South. Violation 16.-289. All right, good afternoon. Matthew Ramos, co-compliance officer, city and April's. Today we are going over the case of CEPM, 2020-2908, City Violation Ordnance 16-289, Uncertainly condition at the address of 531-5th Avenue South. This case has to do with a commercial-shared dumpster and its enclosure. The violations present were overgrowth of vegetation and weeds, as well as trash outside of the dumpsters, causing windblown, as well as the enclosure itself being in disrepair and damaged. Notification was achieved through mailing and a copy of notice of via first class and certified mail. A return receipt was not received. Posting of the copy notice on the property on the date of January 13th, shown through exhibit A through H. The posting was on January 13th exhibit G. Respondents are present at this time. I do testify that all the pictures shown will be true and accurate to pictures of the violations on the dates and times the violation occurred. So our offices received a complaint on November 6th, 2024 at the property 531 Fifth Avenue South. Again, the violations were the dumpster enclosure at a commercial property with the order of evitation weeks, the trash around the property itself, as well as the dumpster enclosure damaged and disrepair. No violation was sent on the same date November 60, 2024 with a 10-day compliance order. During that time, the vegetation and trash was brought into compliance as shown as exhibit L. That is exhibit I. Sorry. So this was the dumpster enclosure itself with the damage, the overgrowth of vegetation to trash through and about the property itself. And again, vegetation was brought into compliance, an exhibit L. Is it I? Okay, exhibit I then. You don't have the next one that shows the clue? There we go. Exile, exhibit out. At this time, no communication was achieved. Compliance was not achieved on the date of November 16th, so it noticed appearing the West sent out. November 21st, 2024, regarding the enclosures still damaged and disrepair. At this time, I'd like to submit evidence into the record M through O. So yesterday January 20th, our office received an email with a proposal from attorney Matthew Flores, who is present today, dealing with all the property maintenance issues and the violations that were there. Basically, it has to do with the fence being repaired, with permits being obtained, the pressure washing of the slab that's currently there, repainting of the ballers and taking care of any vegetation and any weeds that may arise during the years. And you'll see a picture of today exhibits N through O, what the dumpster currently looks like. Garbage is gone, vegetation is taken care of. Obviously the dumpster is, you know, the enclosure itself is still in disrepair, but it seems like the process has started for that to be taken care of. So at this time I would like to request all exhibits be received in evidence. And would like to request the finding effect of violation does exist. Thank you. Okay. We're not here to find things of facts, including those items that have been cured already to date, as mentioned by Mr. Ramos. Okay. Okay. Can you just say your name for the record? Yeah, my name is Matt Flores. I'm council for the property owner. Also, presidents do it Rothman, the principal property manager, Mary Ann Wolfe. And Mr. Andrew Hill, who is the contractor that is presented the proposal that was provided to the board. Okay. Okay. So you're asking for a finding of fact down that we get discussed. Any comments from the city, the attorney or your, your, your, your, your, your. I think you heard the representative from the property owner, not object to our finding of fact. So I think that's all we're asking for. Right. Any, someone will make a none. No, I'm not sure. Motion. Okay. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the case, I moved to the board, find that the conditions described by the code enforcement officer in the notice of violation, and that this hearing existed on the date's time and the place alleged, conditions described constitutes a violation of section. 16-289. 16-289 of the Code of a Performance. What's the ordinances of the City of Naples? Second. We have a second. Okay. That's pretty clear. Cut. I think we can go right to a roll call on that. Member Davidson. Yes. Member Greenwald. Yes. Member Fawcett. Yes. Member Landite. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Vice Chair Sparrow. Yes. Chair Fawcett. Yes. Okay. That passes unanimously. Finding a fact. Now, where are the next days? What are you recommending? So the city is just looking for them to attain the permits. It looks like the area I have a proposal in place. So my question would be, what timeline are you requesting for this to start and finish? Sure. So for the record, the permit was applied for before the meeting today by Mr. Hill. Application number PRFN2500417, I can approach if you need that. If not, obviously the city records will reflect that number. Mr. Hill is stated within 60 days will be sufficient for both the permit and to do the repair work to bring the enclosure into compliance. So we would respectfully request 60 days to do so. I would agree with that. City would agree. You're okay. So 60 days to cure the issue and penalty, you have opinion on that. As of right now, no. It looks like they already have the permit in place. They've been taking care of the days. If it's not done. After 60 days, I would not be opposed to $50 a day. Okay, so some more of the minor fee if it's not. Can I ask you a question? Sure. I know it'll be done to, it's going to be permitted, right? That is correct. And it'll be done to code. I just have a question. Does the code require that the, there be a fence in front of it to encloat, you call it an enclosure? It is It's not really enclosed. It's on three sides right now. To that I'll refer to my manager of bilqancy. Whatever they propose a bill will have to be co-compliant according to the standards of, this was an existing long house structure, but the code, as far as I remember it, it doesn't require all three sides to be, and you know, you can all have an open side as long as not facing a street. Okay. So, you know, that was compliant probably at the time, but would also admit that if there's some changes that need to be done, they'll have to comply with that. Most likely, you could stay three-sided though, but it's up to their contractor. Right. Okay. question, Mr Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Will there be a top? I know it's on this. There's no top. You know, because the birds get into the bags and the garbage that's inside these dumpsters. Is there going on this one? It doesn't look as if there's a top. Is one going to be installed? Why don't you come on? with blue one looks like as a top. This is Mr. Heller contractor that will be handling the work. The can. I'm going to go to the next slide. Why don't you come on? The blue one looks like as a time. The blue one has. This is Mr. Heller contractor that will be handling the work. The cans have tops on it. On the green one has a top on it. I know you can't see it. At that angle, there's a bag hanging out with it. There is a top. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Everything he wants to do is find by me. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We'll get a set of $50 a day. Yeah. I mean, it's pretty, it's not over the complicated here. So I move for the 60 days, $50 a day there after. Second. Yeah, second. Okay. Okay. I don't think we further discussion needed. So let's go right to a vote on that Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, vice chair. Yes chair. Crow. Yes, that passes unanimously Thank you for appearing. Thank you for all being here. We appreciate that. And thank you for all your effort. Okay. That concludes our cases for today. Our next meeting is going to be February 27th. Mr. Chairman. Yes. On one comment. Go ahead. Yes. I know we don't have comments for the board, but I asked a question about Quorum's via email, and they said it would be addressed that we didn't, people didn't think we had enough for the Quorum for a meeting before Christmas, and we all like to agree on the decision every single member, but when I queried it to say, was that the case was advised that no, it wasn't, it was a quorum of the people here. A quorum under law is four. And the statute also requires that to have a finding of violation a minimum of four votes must occur. Correct. For instance, if you have a quorum, a minimum qu minimum of four votes must occur. Correct. So for instance, if you have a quorum, a minimum quorum of four. Yes, then it has to do. And one of you disagrees, even though three of you do, it's not a violation because you have to have four members. We're conforming votes. Because I got a different response, so that's why I'm querying it as to whether that is, Is that how the city sees it as well as the law? No, that is Florida statutes. Okay. Florida statutes cause out your form and Florida statutes cause out the minimum number of votes. And that was the new part of it. Some people didn't understand that. Yes, it was a bit. In unison, are we still made basically? Yeah. Right. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I have an additional non-related to this question. And it's about the repeat violation and the net to exceed $500. And given that, I think as you said, it's not a drop in the water. Is there exceptions to things that just we don't have the ability to affect the proper code enforcement. This not to exceed $500 when the guy's making thousands of dollars or tens of thousands of it, whatever he's making, and we're not able to influence his behavior. So the statutes confine code enforcement boards largely to the daily fines that you have. However, the city and the city attorney can, you know, follow up, has other authority outside of this process. They could file a civil action for nuisance. that there are declaratory judgment action and ask a circuit judge to order that this property become and remain in compliance. And that carries the effect of law moving out into the future, and arguably if the owner is found to be in violation, the judge can throw him in jail for contempt. So I mean, there's a variety of other enforcement mechanisms outside the code enforcement thing. I hear your point a lot of times it is frustrating and this vacation rental is a big part because some business owners just see it as an annoying little added fee at cost of doing business and it doesn't really change their behavior. So at some point, the city may need to have other, you know, enforcement mechanisms that just wouldn't be through you. If I can. Can we make a recommendation towards that effect? You can recommend anything you want. Yeah, I mean, there's public case where it's environmental impact issues that are going to require, you know, maybe a stiffer way that would come from the correct. That's correct. There are different situations that are deemed, if you all deemed them irreparable and irreversible in which we can charge up to, I believe it's $5,000 per occurrence, I'm currently working with staff. Things that I see irreparable and and irreversible are disturbing dunes, potentially actually renting your home because you can't reverse a rental once it's already occurred. So we've only had two meetings since I was appointed city attorney. These are things that I'm working with staff on. That obviously you guys would be informed of and it would be a request coming from us so there are current discussions going on to kind of whether safety issues to which are not related to $500 a day I mean there's just other things that don't fall into that insurance requirements are you insured if you're doing something that's outside of the laws? Yes, I'm sure it's not. Okay, okay. Sorry. All right, that's again, discussion. It'll be kind of a rare thing that could come up. Did you have a comment that you was going to make about my first question, Mr. McConnell? No, your first question. I do agree. five number board, quorum three for seven, it's four, and chapter 162 requires for a five member three and for a seven four. So you have to be unanimous if you have the minimum people press. forms three for seven, it's four, and chapter 162 requires for a five member three and for a seven four. So you have to be unanimous if you have the minimum people present. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Well, with that, I mean, I'd like to conclude our meeting. Again, our next meeting is February 27th, and I, your board meeting closed. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you