Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-11788• J-98-1061 11788 4/15/99 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING PAGE NO. 42 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION IN ORDER -'T.0 ' ADD SD-19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT (F.A.R. 2.5) FOR THE PROPERTIES. LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3674, 3680 AND 3690 SOUTHWEST 26TH TERRACE, 2665 SOUTHWEST 37TH AVENUE, AND 3675 SOUTHWEST 27TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A"; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at it's meeting of October 5, 1998, Item No. 3, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. 4B,.,,199.8.,01.0.1, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a change of zoning classification, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, -after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant this change of zoning classification as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE.COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No.. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, ATTACHMENT CORAINED Page 42, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations, is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification to SD-19 Designated F.A.R. overlay District (F.A.R. 2.5) for the properties located at approximately 3674, 3680 and 3690 Southwest 26th Terrace, 2665 Southwest 37th Avenue and 3675 Southwest 27th Street, Miami, Florida, as more particularly legally described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 26, of the Public Records of Miami - Dade County, Florida. Section 2. It is hereby found that this zoning classification change: (a) is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; (b) is not contrary to the established land use pattern; (c) will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; (d) is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; (e) will not materially alter the population density pattern or increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; (f) is necessary due to changed or changing conditions; (g) will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; (h) will not create or excessively increase traffic - 2 - congestion or otherwise affect public safety; (i) will not create a drainage problem; (j) will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area; (k) will not adversely affect property value in the adjacent area; (1) will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord. with existing regulations; and (m) will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner so as to compromise the protection of the public welfare. Section 3. Page No..42 of the Zoning Atlas, made a part of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the city of Miami, Florida, by reference and description in said Ordinance, is hereby amended to reflect the changes made necessary by this Amendment. Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty - 3 - 11788 (30) days after final reading and adoption thereof.1/ PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this - 27th— day of PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 27th day of April , 1999- JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR tn accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2.36, since the Mayov did not indicate appromai of this legislation by signing it in the designated place provided, said 109181af otl now becomes effective with the elapse often (10) days from the date of COMMIoalcn action regarding same, without the Mayor exercising a veto. f ATTEST: Its J. �eman,City lark WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK This Ordinance shall become effective as specified herein unless vetoed by the' Mayor within ten days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Ordinance, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission or upon the effective date stated herein, whichever is later. - 4 - 11788 • EXHIBIT "A" Zone Change from R-2 to C-1 Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 2 of Mottl park at Plat Book 39 at Page 60 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; and Lot 11, W.D. Sanford Subdivision, Plat Book 4 at Page 26 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida Zone Change to SD-19 Overlay Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 2 of Mottl Park, at Plat Book 39 at Page 60 of the Public Record of Dade County, Fla. Address: 3680, 3674, 3668 and app. 3690 S.W. 26 Terr. -AND - Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2 of Mottl Park, at Plat Book 39, Page 60 of the Public Records of Dade County, Fla. and all of Lots 11, 12 and 13 less the West 20 ft. thereof W.D. Sanfords Subdivision according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 26 of the Public Records of Dade County, Fla. 197365.02 go • PZ- 3 SECOND READING ZONING FACT SHEET Case Number: 1998-0151 05-Oct-98 Item No: 3 Location: Approx. 3680,3674,& 3690 SW 26 Terr., 2665 SW 37 Ave & 3675 SW 27 St. Legal: (Complete legal description on file with the Office of Hearing Boards) Applicant: Sol C. Mandel 1800 NE 114 St.,Apt. 2305 Miami, FL 33181 App. Ph: (305) 893-6200 Zoning: C-1 Restricted Commercial R-2 Two-family Residential A. Vicky Leiva, Esq. 2500 First Union Financial Center 200 S.Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2336 Rep. Ph: (305) 374-7593 ext Rep. Fa (U = ext Request: Change of Zoning as listed in Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations from R-2 Two-family Residential and C-1 Restricted Commercial to C-1 Restricted Commercial and SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District (F.A.R. 2.5). Recommendations: Planning and Development: Approval Public Works: No comments Plat and Street Committee: N/A Dade County Transportation: No comments Enforcement History, If any C.E.B. Case No: N/A Last Hearing Date: Found: N/A Violation(s) Cited: N/A Ticketing Action: N/A Daily Fine: $0.00 Affidavit Non -Compliance Issued on: Warning Letter sent on: Total Fines to Date: $0.00 Lien Recorded on: Comply Order by: CEB Action: History: This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board on September 16, 1998. Analysis: Please see attached. - Zoning Board Resolution No: ZB 1998-0101 Vote: 5-0 Zoning Board: Approval City Commission: Passed Virst Reading on October 27, 1998 0 • ANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE Approximately 3674-3680-3690 SW 26t' Terrace; 2665 SW 37`h Avenue and 3675 SW 27`h Street. CASE NO: 1998-0151 Pursuant to Article 4, Section 401 and Article 22 of Ordinance 11060, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed as follows: The request is to change the Zoning designation as follows: Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, in Block 2, MOTTL PARK SUBDIVISION, (39 - 60) and, Lot 11 less the west 20.00 feet thereof, W. D. SANDFORD'S SUBDIVISION, (4 - 26), from R-2 "Duplex Residential" to C-1 "Restricted Commercial" with SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District (F.A.R. 2.5) and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, in Block 2, MOTTL PARK SUBDIVISION, (39 - 60) and, the west 20.00 feet of Lot 11, Lots 12 and 13, • W. D. SANDFORD'S SUBDIVISION, (4 - 26), from C-1 "Restricted Commercial" to C-1 "Restricted Commercial" with SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District (F.A.R. 2.5). ' The following findings have been made: • It is found that the properties fronting SW 26" Terrace are currently being used le- gally as a parking lot for the adjacent property immediately to the west, designated C-1 "Restricted Commercial". • It is found that the subject properties have the C-1 "Restricted Commercial" zoning designation immediately to the west, and that the proposed change will be a logical extension of the commercial designation. • It is found that this application will allow the subject properties to be developed in a manner which includes the uses for which the properties are allowed and will add a host of uses that can better serve the immediate neighborhood and the region. • It is found that this request is also to include the subject properties under the SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District (F.A.R. 2.5) in order to develop the all site as one project. C7 • _ It is found that there is a precedent in the area along SW 37" Avenue north of the subject properties for the same development trend. Based on these findings, the Department of Planning and Development is recom- mending approval of the application as presented. 6�1 • �, �� to hamgny v� eatalhed larrd.iue related to adjacent and near► distracts MaWaarssernlar latan y►►pattern ;; Ex tuxj drstr t borers are.illo ly.�ram �llpdate� ��ti..J J �tlBngeS � dianga� t� that mice �9e r�cessary , Possively Wiv 6on� ar r rho" . �1 - 8S S6II�af u4md on iratf d.' does rot,aft6d pugo S81ety ' � ' `vO11z1 Has surs7ar enpact ondi aer Has sinalar fact on l t and as to adjacentZee �; Hassirm�rorkpadonpropertyvahiesof areas -: Retran Contiutes to tinpro of a61wcent J Conveys same treatmer><:as to ovm�rs same dassicahon itPropty rs ru>fai►ly fetdted tart eturg ; Ddficxilt to -find other adrate ar area .. �.. 11788 4 Me • CITY LIMITS 1 . 17 1• If a 21 a :1 n 23 .. RI , , . , , 39 S '• 7 • n JV' 17 (FAW.5) X Jr .� L Jl 1 = 2 173 190:99 J S.W. A Ili I3I. •I• T • • t< �.on _ �IIII I' o.lasoe•QtTi a ea F so nowd �ocm ' m ai •!t— ,1_ 23 i� L< f.TIMI••I • • I ' Iff f•IL I.. IIr Iw 11 _ _ I � I I le lo�tri I I 'a•, !1. 1 1• I1f li .. I.I rl.� 7 2 r � �I.. . f l• , :�l lq t11 Q�lal �t'i �I�•i~ 7.17 T.!S!sm 3 am►1 p t• t•! 7Q•QfwC u• lao I { t 2 7. a • T.• ilr 7 alpc" a•bl OolaID0• l 2s 1 2 23 i� L< f.TIMI••I • • I ' Iff f•IL I.. IIr Iw 11 _ _ I � I I le lo�tri I I 'a•, !1. 1 1• I1f li .. I.I rl.� 7 2 r � �I.. . f l• , :�l lq t11 Q�lal �t'i �I�•i~ 7.17 T.!S!sm 3 am►1 p t• t•! 7Q•QfwC u• lao I { t 2 7. a • T.• ilr 7 alpc" a•bl OolaID0• l 2s 1 2 7I. T • til i 11 17 I • I tYT1•IH a�ra�:pll +}1! � I� I r•�ss 1 a. I a s .,. . 7• , 25 � II .I T I �sfar'l•Raor ao •1• X. Moe AISEY • ®�Nat L]�Q Qa�o K, - '10 �E3�Q c� a �I ■av■��� � vsysva-� ■ vv �� ®v ®v was � o■�s ■ os:� o� ® ■aas� o■v ssQ �■�� � ®a■ �av ■o:�o■ ®eta ■o■Q■ vas ©0 ©�. ��� • ■ a■i Ea■� ®� ©ie� ov vas b� �.�. o.�■ ELM • • 0 Miami Zoning Board Resolution: ZB 1998-0101 Monday, October 05,1998 Ms Christine. Morales offered the following Resolution and move its adoption Resolution: AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, PAGE 42, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401 SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION IN ORDER TO ADD SD-19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT (F.A.R. 2.5) FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3680, 3674 & 3690 SW 26 TERRACE ,2665 SW 37 AVENUE AND 3675 SW 27 STREET LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" HEREBY ATTACHED. Upon being seconded by Ms. Ileana Hernandez -Acosta, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: Mr. George Barket Yes Ms. Gloria M. Basila Away Ms. Ileana Hemandez-Acosta Yes Ms. Christine Morales Yes Mr. Osvaldo Moran-Ribeaux Away Mr. Humberto J. Pellon Yes Mr. Fidel A. Perez Away Mr. Juvenal Pina Yes Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 5-0 AYE: 5 NAY: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 NO VOTES: 0 ABSENTS: 3 Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief Office of Hearing Boards Case No.: 1998-0151 Item Nbr. _ A788 EXHIBIT "A" Zone Change from R-2 to C-1 Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 2 of Mottl park at Plat Book 39 at Page 60 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; and Lot 11, W.D. Sanford Subdivision, Plat Book 4 at Page 26 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida Zone Change to SD-19 Overlay Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 2 of Mottl Park, at Plat Book 39 at Page 60 of the Public Record of Dade County, Fla. Address: 3680, 3674, 3668 and app. 3690 S.W. 26 Terr. - AND - -Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2 of Mottl Park, at Plat Book 39, Page 60 of the Public Records of Dade County, Fla. and all of Lots 11, 12 and 13 less the West 20 ft. thereof W.D. Sanfords Subdivision according.to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 26 of the Public Records of Dade County, Fla. 197365.02 C7 • ,.a 11788 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ATLAS He Number: I, Sol C. Mandel hereby apply to the City Commission of the City of Miami for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami as more particularly described herein and, in support of that request, furnish the following information: Approximately2665 SW 37 Ave l 3675 SW 27 Street `f 1. Address of property: 3680 3674 3@jtrand aoo 3690 S.W. 26 TPrr ice 2. Two surveys, prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor. 3. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest. (See attached form.) ' 4. Certified list of owner of real estate within a 375-foot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered by this application. (See attached form.) 5. At lease two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements). 6. Atlas sheet(s) on which property appears: 42 7. Present zoning designation(s): R-2 and C--1 8. Proposed zoning designation(s)- C-1 and SD19 OverlaV (F.A.R 2.5) 9. Statement explaining why present zoning is inappropriate. (See attached form.) 10. Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. (See attached form.) 11.Other. (Specify.) 12. Filing fee of $ according to following schedule: Change of zoning classification to: CS, PR, R-1, R-2, per square foot of net lot area: .............. $ 12 • Minimum ......................... 550.00 R-3, R-4, O, G/I, per square foot of net lot area .16 Minimum ........................... 650.00 C-1, C-2, I per square foot of net lot area .20 Minimum................................................ 750.00 C.B. and all SD's, per square foot of net lot area .22 Minimum................................................ 850.00 Signature: �C� Name: Sol C. Mandel Address: 1800 N.E. 114 Street Ant 230 Miami FL 33181 Phone: 305-893-6200 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )SS: Sol C. Mandel , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he.is the (Owner) ( vmer) of the real property described in answer to question 1 above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as agent for Owner) that he has authority to execute this petition on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this ' Day of July , 1998. Notafy ublic, State of Florida at Large MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Jeffrey S. Tarren =.. MY COMMISSION N CC620454 EXPIRES oc March 7, 2001 BONDED TNRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE, INC. 11788 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this } day of July 19 98 , by Sol C. Mandel , who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. vf�o ry Public - State ofFlorida Commission No.: My Commissiti ires: J s ranen MY COMMI �•, S510NI M CC620454 EXPIRES STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day -of 19 , by of a corporation;. on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally known to me or has produced as identification and who did [did not] take an oath. Name: Notary Public - State of Florida Commission No.: My Commission Expires: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before_m6 hiis day of 19 , by --partner (or agent) on behalf of a known to me or has produced not] take an oath. i partnership. He/She is personally as identification and who did [did Name: Notary Public - State of Florida Commission No.: My Commission Expires: 11 Agl&LAN D. AXELROD, IAN L. BILZIN, A. B ERT E. DOTSON, JR., P.A. (CHARD DUNN. P.A. AUDREY A. ELLIS, P.A. JACOB J. GIVNER, P.A. LESTER L. GOLDSTEIN. P.A. RICHARD M. GOLDSTEIN, P.A. ALAN J. KAZAN, P.A.- STEVEN D. LEAR. P.A. ALVIN D. LODISH, P.A.-- CARTER N. MCDOWELL. P.A. EILEEN BALL MEHTA, P.A. NORMAN A. MOSCOWITZ, P.A.- _ HOWARD E. NELSON, P.A. MARJIE C. NELLON, P.A. STANLEY S. PRICE, P.A. MARTIN A. SCHWARTZ, P.A.- JOHN C. SUMBERG, P.A.- DAVID W. TRENCH, P.A. MITCHELL E. WIDOM, P.A. RICHARD O. MONORE, P.A.- MARC J. STONE. P.A.' OF COUNSEL BILZIN BERG DUNN PRICE & AXELROD LLP A PARTNERSHIPOFPROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 2500 FIRST UNION FINANCIAL CENTER 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-2336 TELEPHONE: (30S) 374-7580 - INFOOBILZIN.COM FAX: (30S) 374-7S93 - BROWARD: (954) 462-6808 -ALSO A MEMBER OF NEW YORK BAR --ALSO A MEMBER OF OC BAR July 31, 1998 Ms. Lourdes Slazyk Assistant Director Planning Department City of Miami 444 S.W. 2 Avenue, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 i Re:. Property at 37 Avenue between S.W. 26 Terrace & 27 Street Dear Ms. Slazyk: BRIAN S. ADLER SUZANNE M. AMADUCCI ARNOLD A. BROWN CHRISTOPMER D. BROWN THOMAS F. CARR SHERRIL M. COLOMBO JEFFREY D. DECARLO J. RONALD DENMAN NANCY S. GLIMCHER RAOUEL M. GONZALEZ SCOTT D. KRAVETZ JOHN M. KUHN MICHAEL W. LARKIN A. VICKY LEIVA SUSAN J. PONTIGAS JERRY B. PROCTOR CHARLES M. RATNER CHRISTOPHER H. SAIA STACEY L. SILVERMAN TERESA J. URDA LYNN S. WATERMAN In support of the enclosed Land lise & :Zoning Application, I would like to take this opportunity to dutline the proposal for this project. The property which is the subject matter of this Application is a site which has been since the mid-60's in restaurant/bar use and most recently has been a Tony Roma's restaurant. The restaurant has occupied the property fronting on S.W. 37 Avenue from 26 Terrace to 27 Street with a conditional use for parking on four residential lots behind the restaurant and fronting on S.W. 26 Terrace. The current zoning of the restaurant parcel fronting 37 Avenue is C-1. The current zoning of the four lots along 26 Terrace is R-2. The subject Application for land use and zoning change seeks to modify the current zoning of the four R-2 lots (duplex zoning) to C-1 consistent with the remainder of the parcel and consistent with the current use as parking. The Application also requests an SD-19 overlay to permit an F.A.R. of 2.5. 'These request are for the purpose of unifying the entire parcel under the majority existing category of C-1 and to permit the construction of a multi -family residential apartment building. These requests are consistent with existing land use and zoning categories along the 37 Avenue corridor. G:\DMZ\73572\ 10977\0200409.01 7/30/98 • BILZIN SUMBERG DUNN PRICOAXELROD LLP Ms. Lourdes Slazyk July 31, 1998 Page 2 It is the intent of the property owner to voluntarily proffer as part of the re -zoning process a covenant running with the land which will limit the use of the property upon obtainment of the request in the attached application to a multi -family residential building with accessory commercial. This will allow the development of a multi -story apartment building but permit the possibility of amenities at the ground floor for use by building tenants. However, the limitation will only permit the commercial use as an accessory use and not as a principal use. The covenant will also place a height limitation on lots 7, 8, and 9 of block 2, not to exceed 40 feet in height, thus allowing a transition height between the building on 37 Avenue, the height limitation on lots 7, 8 and 9 and the duplex uses currently existing to the east and south of the subject property. Another item which will be part of the covenant will be a proffer to allow a one -foot perimeter of land on the east side of lot 9, block 2 and the south sides of lots 7, 8 and 9 to remain in R-2 (duplex zoning) so as to curtail any future intrusion into the duplex zone area. Nevertheless, however, the one ft. perimeter shall be counted into the F.A.R. calculation for the project. While the. requests made in this Application may at first glance appear to be placing a higher density on the area, it is actually a reduced use category from the current C-1 o,i the restaurant and bar side�and the legal non -conforming permitted parking for restaurant and bar use to a more permissible transitional use similar to the R4 multi -family category which already exists in the area. At the same time, the project will provide enhanced tax revenues ifd-recurring economic benefits to the City. As always, we are available to meet with you and provide any additional information which. you feel may be tiecessary for your analysis and review of this Application. Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation. We look forward to a positive resolution to this application. Ve truly yo A. Vicky Leiva AVL/lzc Enclosure cc: Mr. Juan Gonzalez Ms. Teresita Fernandez GADMZ\73572\ 10977\0200409.01 7/30/98 • 11788 AFFIDAVIT ® STATE OF FLORIDA } COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE }SS: Before me the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared _ Sol C. Mandel who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he/she is the owner, v, the legal repiesentative of the ovvnei, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Miami, Florida, affecting the real property located in the City of Miami, as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he/she represents, if any, have given their full an complete permission for him/her to act in his/her behalf for the change or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers and legal description for the real property of which he/she is the owner or legal representative. 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. Applicant's Signature 0 OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name: Sol C. Mandel % A. Vicky Leiva, Esquire, Bilzin Sumberg, et aL Mailing Address: 2500 First Union Financial Center Miami FL 33131 Telephone Number: (305)374-7580 Legal Description: SEE EXHIBIT "A" Owner's Name: N/A Mailing Address: Telephone Number: Legal Description: Owner's Name: N/A Mailing Address: Telephone Number: Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375 feet of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Leaal Description Vacant Land Within 375' but not part of this application Lots 7, 8, 9 of the W.D. Sanford Subdivision, Plat Book 4 at Page 26 of the Public Records of Dade County, FL 197365.02 LA • EXHIBIT "A" Zone Change from R-2 to C-1 • 197365.02 Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 2 of Mottl .park at Plat Book 39 at Page 60 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; and Lot 11, W.D. Sanford Subdivision, Plat Book 4 at Page 26 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida Zone Change to SD-19 Overlay Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 2 of Mottl Park, at Plat Book 39 at Page 60 of the Public Record of Dade County, Fla. Address: 3680, 3674, 3668 and app. 3690 S.W. 26 Terr. - AND - Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2 of Mottl Park, at Plat Book 39, Page 60 of the Public Records of Dade County, Fla. and all of Lots 11, 12 and 13 less the West 20 ft. thereof W.D. Sanfords Subdivision according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 26 of the Public Records of Dade County, Fla. 11788 • DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property.* Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 2 of Mottl Park, at Plat Book 39 at Page 60 of the Public Record of Dade County, Fla. 3680, 3674, 3668 and app. 3690 S.W. 26 Terr. I- - - - - - -- - AND — 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: Section 2-618 of the Code of the City of Miami requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, ibeneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. Sol C. Mandel - 100% Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. ots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2 of Mottl Park, at Plat Book 3% Page 60 of the Public Records i of Dade County, Fla. and all of Lots 11, 12 and 13 less the West 20 ft. thereof W.D. I — Sanfords Subdivision according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 26 of the Public Records of Dade County, Fla. Within 375' but not part of this application Lots 7, 8, 9 of the W.D. Sanford Subdivision, Plat Book 4 at Page 26 of the Public Records of Dade County, FL. Owner U E , For`more.specific information, See Exhibit "A". • • • . 11 •.Mfd I••r... �j, J T ' . . ':.1`• ..ilei .w� Salad IIN %�' du .l Ce: tebe r A. 11. 1941 � " raft" C01lPOW1Ti0M. F ' JI�NIM wI�►'11• I.+n.(:tb0.te/1tA of tlerlis . end A614rs 11t ' 1+Ir1•Ir1111 hj .1 t �irR•t• Mthl(►Ir im.a. It �,�•` �. ; � 1NO, N/t. 111eb Il:ee•e/ Ape. 27071 beret, Mini, pi. a7t11 MOPgum, d r' �j'�' 'ti w'•r4�w�i.r e+iw..�i.li�i.Ir� r�ii.~.iw .'.r » NM • yt�•, + �i •� IIM li+.NM►. Fr •rd ill fb'IIfM.MNeq (� maw •�"r"",•�•,Ir.1 -or �: ��wrM•nr. N*•►M i.l►�w 4 R•Nbf eria.r.l,d ! 10.00 eed'Nll.r ~ j 11•d, !y tba► p+.tnl/ dog v1•nl, b+roa+n, IOU,:••GM, nMI.tIt�►�r/+a-(/Ho, Finlay •111i..1.eJlwr rate & Itlrrilo, all IAd Pown Mall t1►w.l. OR bade ' y:+ . ' Lmmrds: t' `�•`!;' ywS 6, t ' s 1 9/ iloC 1 to the Plat therefore '>riat, >soo a9/ at Page 00 of the e! Dade Isobntiy; i3osidM, i ' 4� •. w�,Yyn r, htiie Moe1 01.111h002-01=0 �1'q••' •' 01�11fe•00lr01l0 .. �•, „ ., .. �.•.1 , +,�.�,h OIJl11.00Z•01/0 tLsi •�'L . •, ., .,, � � ' ' 44" O1J! 11-001•Ol lO Qr VF- xulf ,�/ R� fL Mi�' •l� �r 11rIrIR1IMN, 1r1�Mipew�Mllf �Nd IIMIN1fMeMMi ►AfflM� 11.lM/►hIJ M 18 cap, i'ri0ue 'r0�. 46 .Irr. r". rlrpl. h►n�. Ili lil "AN Aj fwrae111. wlik Sall( prert,r Amt 11 le •10w(nliy O ad of said 6a 4, (.. i.tllal tt 'ttuid WON .Sad 64rt swimmolp to /ell t111d mmi" low lolwil Am It 6AV Juno O.W. INio''1• add (aed arwl sniff 4404 ill► toe+. aralyd 16 64111 AVINIr al ell PIVIOM Wheme,/e.1 e•i tfiAt irld 1•ed. h lR. of •U wlfllalAllelnt !yw+ f 19a0fl�oeat tau . �a {O ti�0i Itl. NmNr b•. I:ew Uwr 0 ;:.c IM ►tMt+e111i1 In Its rase, *Ad I t f+r mm sal to so'llmomfe •((t* It111fN i►•l•+sflletw. (fir.Ml,ll. dolt 8'06 ,111r day alel Pw f kol sillUfti, temp e., e� 1/ 11MI e d ....,._ not Men a w �' L� >s1'A"1t tip rJARIDA f` j an11t" ur DUDE 1 IWOUT eta"" All m Ish M. 1•wI •, M error I111 Iw1 bw II AP twr 1sd bm" ebmw al at wMwMrrrn4 r-•Ill/.rsrlr lot manda! w94 laws r r to er Mcwlia I.t al.wrsmy r 16 mpseft rlga .paw II w .wart d" .1 aw M *%MIN Ir6rt•ri1r1 I i At ew M w wan N rr Wmaw" %rrlw be* 01 Iaw1" 'a" Iwlrn,e'Oq 'mw* w era r eW errw We IM aw ti all I011r. Owl* At er IrMe111 Od r eN tlnmaK attreb .. rrrl w .•.W .r r Ia t111411 Old Us* in Itr1e1* Ad. ~6,.1 ocitlls•r N. i L tie. i� ` 11llltftN •h.nM 117ra►� .. Ilk �,' •t r fa *•tI n. � 1. All a► sac-mmu ?. bAltt>!!A r f�% %f{Kllfr•tM p ! ,I.,% i +.Vll f;dAt �'ry w t/ "m fun ID .19 +Math NO aetallnr We i t 2 • •., , 71 IMN 'o�'.F T1'y �MYfpl lb J�' dr �obbe +:fuxlilw d+1J>D RFALTY A D: odI 1r i �+rt s r.iw Ilk t ar s) the: Stets oBride f ti RIlT20 ,� ;�.. JAIr 1,��e�,. w ""�•�f Ilt.rrFsrl i Alrt� J h• •.E;.t..• b 1SOp M:B. 114th I fi �ryfyf'li,. betfist, Apt. 2S0! y. I . Moeeh Mterst .lv! ` Cj 1 itl�fi4tuettti th.f Ilk MINTY K,66 r,wauo,Mae. mew y� ' i. / fh. DNA � , R, a lNn N w�Lerr, fhd Ins tb.M O.OQ sell Who ' I .. HMMIw, off I1114 ewlulN Irud t"1. 6WI410L P.0 IrfNr 1 (# 14 Dods ' All o! eta I1. l last'tharsely2 and 13; lass the oast adeard!e r be tA1frORD'a .Bp,C=1/tgi �0 f. plat ooq to the 'E+l�tt I of Dal k 1 at 'r -plat gOhervat, rsoerded in i e 'QDtlnt 3 of the Public •Reaorde ...�: t y, p O'Lda. CAW fit r4'• ' •� Nea'. Ot-I11E- s 01�1215-p01,01�pf 116�-008i 3-1.0090 and ,. . of � Wth all ilk ' � It; h'+��MIN Moat ?! • �o ewe andAnd kf�,n�M Iha�M. to Mold 'ti '1hp r lar oafs M fw• rl.11l� /,,,,+w. ftvo Ihr In% 0-11 MRril .�d 64.d .whaoll n►enlme 16t it if lek'iNHy , -4 Ihe# mad la;.ej lid .Nd wli d,i.N,l ti..,rM1�o Lll awl ,,,,, ®"f°"'l eJ .ofd l:;;i kjao i or .0 ++N4r• «�,„.f.1�.�. Ni of.nf bs l ► poem room"?, out, htltOf ,, .ew I r+�rntpr IN fl, Nd,Its^PftflsfDb N� to A.R� ' $AMSIP to+d►1►JM► nJh►+►r t!1«rNn1" duct aalh,Nre,rj INn,I■r rodf s L �+' 1, rwlrPd •n�f ,d,L„v„l In tiw Its �sl Ma".g r,ul pP 4W b. hod?" L f •� �� �' ~' ~ I.,i !+F•w► ,r 'elkM W,N I�'1!, P!1"u0 .1 le. ,� „1illlfr a" : wole �� iP7"'KI Aye ',' I � �' '�� � � , • AAA :", �er'yioiS o . mull .rasK 11788 • 11, • • , STATE OF FLORaDA ) )SS: COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Ray N. Hunt who after first being duly sworn deposes and states: 1. My name is Ray N. Hunt. I am over the age of 18 years old. I am the owner of Florida Real Estate Decisions, Inc. 2. My business concentrates on the preparation and certification of property owners list, to be used in conjunction with lenal notices as may be required by law. 3. 1 personally prepared the list of Property Owners Within 375 feet of: MottL Park PS 39 - 80 Lots 1 thru 9 Block 2 WD Sandfords PR 4-26 Rots 11 and 12 and Lot 13 less W 20ft fcr Ss, 4. That said list of owners was prepared on July 30, 1998 and contained the information for name,. address and folio numbers from the certified list of owners prepared by the Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser effective October 16, 1997 and in full force and effect at the time of preparation on the above referenced date of July, 30, 1998. 5. That the correct address for Almany Investors Ltd, as certified by the Miami - Dade Property Appraiser at the time of the preparation of property owners list for the above referenced property in paragraph 3 was 2700 Southwest 23rd Terrace. 6. That the property owners list prepared by the Miami -Dade Property Appraiser G;1pMZ\733251 l U324UI230704 •0 1 r c-ord i 3/8194 hcz-3 c 1 0 8 A city c4ei't( and upon which the ownership list relied continued to be in full force and effect up to and including October 12, 1998 7. Based upon my knowledge and belief, it is and continues to be my opinion and sworn statement.that the property ownership list as prepared by Florida Real Estate Decisions, Inc. and certified with my signature was the accurate and complete representation of the real estate property and property owners, mailing addresses and folio numbers within 375 feet of the property listed under paragraph 2 above: FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NA HTI 1�Y The'foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c day of March, 1999 by Ray N. Hunt who is personally known to me or has produced a valid drivers license as identification. , IN MIGDAL.IA MATOS Notary ublic, tat o Florida afn MY COMMISSION N CC 891387 EXPIRES: January 13, 2002 Print ame: '-WO,U4TAAY 'Fla. NoWryS ""CBga°"m",Co. Commission N . My Commission Expires: GAhMZ�73325U 0324\0230104.01 2 3/8199 11788 Florida Real Estate Decisions, Inc. February 24, 199T" A. Vicky Levia, Esq. BILZIN SU14BERG DUNN & AXELROD LLP 2500 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Property Owners List .Within 375 feet of: MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOTS 1 THRU 9 BLK 2 W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOTS 11 & 12 & LOT 13 LESS W20FT FOR ST Dear Vicky, With regard to the above mentioned legales, our corresponding letter of certification was dated July 30, 1998. The real property tax rolls, that were used in doing this search, were current from 10/16/97 through 10/12/98. The mailing address we used in this report, for the property in question (folio 01-4117-001- 0190), was from this tax roll. This information appeared on the then current tax roll as follows: 01-4117-001-0190 ALMANY INVESTORS LTD 2660 SW 37 AVE 2700 SW 23 TERR GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 MIAMI FL 33145 LOTS 8 THRU 11 BLK 2 LOT SIZE'34020 SQ FT In the 1998 tax roll, current as of 10/13/98, the address was changed to: 01-4117-001-0190 ALMANY INVESTORS LTD 2660 SW 37 AVE 3711 SW 27 ST GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 MIAMI FL 33134 LOTS 8 THRU 11 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 34020 SQ FT I have enclosed copies of the 1997 and 1998 Real Property Tax Roll. These copies were obtained from the microfiche that the county produces and we purchase for research. If I can be of any further assistance, please give me a call. Si erely, Hunt 117 8 8 :53 1997 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE AS OF: 10/16/97 CITY OF MIAMI FICHE NO. 01-053 NAME OF OWNER DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TAXING AUTHORITY TAXES BY TOTAL DATE OF RECEIPT 00 AND DISTRICT TAX AND 1� TOTAL AGRI. WVD I�VD ADD kMSTD SCHOOL OTHER MILLAGE RATE RECEIPT NUMBER VALUE DIFF TYPE EX Hr,cTD EX EX TAXABLE T-i OR EX VAL EX `lAI E � 37TH AVENUE ASSOCIATES GABLES TERRACE CONDO OPER a.599 597.86 201 SW A ST UNIT 1108 DBT SVC 1.920 119.58 717.44 !---A�41 FL UNDIV 1/108 CNTY WD 6.023 375.11 331303513 INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS DBT SVC .929 57.86 NOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING OFF REC 16666-1014 LIBRARY .316 19.68 SCH OP '9.356 582.69 SCH DEBT 1.106 68.8R FIND .050 3.11 WM DIST .597 37.18 62280 62280 EVG PRJ .100 6.23 1150.74 • 0100 01 4116 083 0700 PROP 2351 DOUGLAS RD 1108 TOTAL 1868.18 PRIOR YEARS TAXES DUE A A A 37TH AVENUE ASSOCIATES GAP-LESATERRACE CONDO OPER 9.599 602.66 201 SW 8 ST UNIT 1208 DBT SVC 1.920 129.54 723.20 MIAMI FL UNDIV 1/108 CNTY WD 6.023 378.12 331303513 INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS DBT SVC .929 58.32 HOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING OFF REC 16666-1014 LIBRARY .316 19.84 SCH OP 9.356 5`7.37 SCH DEBT. 1.106 69.43 FIND .050 3.11. WM DIST .597 37..8 62780 62780 EVG PRJ .100 1.28 1159.98 0100 01 4116 083 0710 PROP 2351 DOOGLAS RD 1208 TOTAL 1883.18 PRIOR YEARS TAXES DUE A 37TH AVENUE ASSOCIATES GABLES TERRACE CONDO OPER 9.599 667.46 201 SW 8 ST UNIT 1308 DBT SVC 1.920 121.50 728.96 MIAMI FL UNDIV 1/108 CNTY WD 6.023 381.14 331303513 INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS DBT SVC .929 58.79 NOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING OFF REC 16666-1014 LIBRARY .316 20.00 SCH OF, 9.356 592.05 SCH DEBT 1.106 69:99 FIND .050 3.16 WM DIST .597 37.78 ® 63280 63280 EVG PRJ .100 6.33 1169.?4 0100 01 4116 083 0720 PROP 2351 DOUGLAS RD 1308 TOTAL 1898.20 PRIOR YEARS TAXES DUE a a a c tr a a tr tr tr tr tr r tr tr a a___ r__ o___ r r .. _ r a__ a_ tr a a a a tr a a___ a a .. `569.06 a tr a tr a a a r a a a t• a a a 37TH AVENUE ASSOCIATES GABLES TERRACECONDOA.OPERA 9.599 201 SW 8 ST UNIT 509 DBT SVC 1.920 113.82 682.88 " MIAMI FLU UNDIV 1/108 CNTY WD 6.023 357.04 331303513 IN? IN COMMON ELEMENTS DBT SVC .929 55.07 NOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING OFF REC 16666-1014 LIBRARY .316 18.73 SCH OP 9.356 554.62 SCH DEBT 1.106 65.56 FIND .050 2.96 WM .597" 5. 39 35.93 59280 59280 EVGDIST PRJ .100 1095.30 0100 01 4116 083 0730 PROP 2351 DOUGLAS RD 509 TOTAL 1778.18 PRIOR YEARS TAXES DUE A A A 37TH AVENUE ASSOCIATES GABLES TERRACECONDOA OPER 9.599 573.86 201 SW 8 ST UNIT 609 DBT SVC 1.920 114.78 688.64 MIAMI FL UNDIV 1/108 CNTY WD 6.023 360.05 331303513 INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS DBT SVC .929 55.54 NOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING OFF REC 16666-1014 LIBRARY .316 18.89 FIND -- .050 3.37 WM DIST .597 40.26 92933 W 500 25000 67.433 EVG PRJ .100 6.74 1245.96 r)100 01 4117 001 h 0170 PROP ': 3721-23 SW 27 ST •• :. TOTAL ii 2`]22.75 is !: � C is C ,) ,: ,, /�� [UE C t t t^. tr h !: A h i; ALMANY INVESTORS LTD ,` h :: C ,` ': ;Y f. * p t f. 3 GABLES MANOR SUB f � PB`47-36 t * * is ,: OPER h t * f. :` 9.599 :) ,:.. 28230.26 ,` ,) .: ,. ,. ,. _ `mil ca�i 2700 SW 23 TERR LOTS 8 THRU 11 BLK 2 DBT SVC 1.920 5646.35 33876.61 MIAMI FL LOT SIZE 34070 SQ FT CNTY VD 6.023 17712.47 331453300 OR 15817-3048 1192 1 & 16952-1514 DOT SVC .929 2732.01 NOT ADVERTISED- PAA9 PENDING 1094 1 LIBRARY .316 929.29 SCH OP 9.356 27514.17 cg� SCH DEBT 1.106 3252.53 FIND .050 147.04 WM DIST .597 1755.66 2940,05 2940805 EVG PRJ ..100 294. 54337.25 295 0100 01 4117 001 0190 PROP 2660 SW 37 AVE TOTAL 88213.86 DOSE MUNOZ GABLES MANOR SUBA PB 47-36 OPER 9.599 832.56 4445 RED ROAD LOT 12 9L� 2 DBT SVC 1.920 166.52 999.08 tliE MIAMI FL LOT SIZE IRREGULAR CNTY WD 6.023 522.37 33155 OR 15955-2377 0693 1 DBT SVC .929 80.57 LIBRARY .316 27.41 SCH OP 9.6 811.45 ® SCH DEBT 1.10106 95.9292 FIND .050 4.34 WM DIST .597 51.78 867"0 86730 EVG PRJ .100 8.67 1602.51 83Z 0100 01 4117 001 0210 PROP 3720 SW 26 TERR TOTAL 2601.59 * * * d d A * * * * * * * * * * * A a tr * ,. d * * * * t * A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * f, * * * * * A *. d ' * * * * * * t * JEFFREY A HARRISON GABLES MANOR SUB PS 47-36 OPER 9.599 569.73 1600 RED RD LOT 13 BLK 2 DBT SVC 1.920 113.95 683.68 DUE MIAMI FL LOT SIZE 60.000 X 105 CNTY WD 6.023 357.47 33138 OR 15329-427 1291 4 DBT SVC .929 55.14 - LIBRARY .316 18.75 SCH OP 9.356 555.28 SCH DEBT 1.106 65.64 FIND .050 2.97 WM DIST .597 35.43 84350 25000 59350 EVG PRJ .100 5.94 1096.62 0100 01 4117 001 0220 PROP 3730 SW 26 TERR TOTAL 1780.30 NESTOR FERNANDEZ GABLES MANOR SUB P8 47-36 OPER 9.599 1148.86 3983 KUMQUAT AVE LOT 14 BLK 2 DBT SVC 1.920 229.78 1378.64 MIAMI FL LOT SIZE 60.000 X 105 CNTY WD 6.023 720.83 DUE 331335611 OR 13302-3519 0687 1 DBT SVC .929 111.18 LIBRARY .316 3782 SCH OP 9.356 1119:72 SCH DEBT 1.106 132.36 FIND .050 5.98 WM DIST .597 71.45 119679 119679 EVG PRJ .100 11.97 2211.31 223 0100 01 4117 001 0230 PROP 3742 SW 26 TERR TOTAL 3589.95' d f * * d # d * * * ♦ * t * * d d d d C t * d d * * d * * # f * * * # * d d * f. p * tr A d d * * d * d A * * d d d d d d HECTOR A TORRES bW HANY GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 OPER 9.599 572.32 3750-52,SW 26 TERR LOT 15 BLK 2 DBT SVC 1.920 114.47 686.79 MIAMI FL LOT SIZE 60.000 X 105 CNTY WD 6.023 359.09 331347235 OR 16168-1125 1293 1 DBT SVC .929 55.39 nUE LIBRARY .316 18.84 SCH OP 9.356 557.80 SCH DEBT 1.106 65.94 FIND .050 2.98 WM DIST ..597 35.59 84620 25000 59620 EVG PRJ .100 5.96 1101.59 038 0100 01 4117 001 0240 PROP 3750 SW 26 TERR TOTAL 1788.38 * * * d * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .* * * * * * * * * * * * h * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * d * * .* a `.A h * * d * * * * BLANCA MARTELL 17 54 41 OPER 9.599 .809.72 PO BOX 161473 GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 DBT SVC 1.920 161.95 971.67 MIAMI FL LOT 16 BLY, 2 CNTY WD 6.OZ3 508.04 1998 REAL. PROPERTY TAX ROLL STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE AS OF: 10/13/1998 CITY OF MIAMI FICHE NO. 01-056 NAME OF OWNER DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TAXING AUTHORITY TAXES BY TOTAL DATE OF RECEIPT AND - DISTRICT TAX AGRI. WVD WVD ADD HMSTD SCHOOL OTHER MILLAGE RATE RECEIPTNUMBERTOTAL VALUE DIFF TYPE EX HMSTD EX EX TAXABLE. y� OR EX VAL EX VALUE 3?TH AVENUE ASSOCIATES 2351 DOUGLAS ROAD GABLES TERRACE CONDO UNIT 709 OPER DBT SVC 10.QQQ 1./YU : 602.80 1Q7.9p 710-70 UNDIV 1/108 CNTY WD 6.Qp2 3 3.07 MIAMI FL DBT SVC 50.45 331450000 INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS 334 20.13 NOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING OFF REC 16666-1014 LIBRARY F057 85.00 1.0000. 85.00 SCH OP 9.182 553.49 SCH DEBT 52.883 FIND :048 WM DIST .597 35.99 60280 • 60280 EVG PRJ .100 6.03 1175.94 0100 01 4116 083 0750 PROP 2351 DOUGLAS RD 709 TOTAL 1886.64 PRIOR YEARS TAXES DUE 37TH AVENUE ASSOCIATES GABLES TERRACE CONDO OPER 10.pppppp 6078 108:8 716.60 2351 DOUGLAS ROAD UNIT 809 DBT SVC 1:9% MIAMI FL UNDIV 1/108 CNTY WD 6.023 366.08 331450000 INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS DBT SVC .837 5 87 NOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING OFF REC 16666-1014 LIBRARY 85.00 .334 1.0000 2 jF057 8 SCH OP 9.182 558 SCH DEBT .978 59FIND .86 047 :59744 .29 36.08 60780 780 EVGDIST PRJ 00 1185.00 0100 01 4116 083 0760 PROP 2351 DOUGLAS RD 809 TOTAL 1901.60 2351 DDOUGLASAVENUE AROADIATES UNIT GABLES TERRACE CONDO pDBBTRSVC ptQQ#Q 1Q. 16.pv 612 1 ?9 722.49 i MIAMI FL UNDIV 1/108 CNTY WD :09 331450000 INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS DBT SVC .837 51.29 NOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING OFF REC 16666-1014 LIBRARY 334 20.47 F057 85.00 1.pppppppp 85:1 SCH Of 9.182 56267 DEBT 52:8 FSCH IND :978 WM DIST 6.13 61280 61280 PRJ .1000 1194.p� 0100 01 4116 083 0770 PROP 2351 DOUGLAS RD 909 TOTAL 1916.53 PRIOR YEARS TAXES DUE t # t t # # # # t # # * * # t t # 37" AVENUE ASSOCIATES # * # t # t t # # # # # # GABLES TERRACE CONDO # # # t # # * # # OPER t t t # t 1pp: # # t t # # 617. t t # t # 728.39 # # # # # # # # # # * 2351 DOUGLAS ROAD UNIT 1009 DBT SVC 1 11C 5 MIAMI FL UNDIV 1/108 CNTY WD 6.0 372.10 331450000 INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS DBT SVC .837 51.71 NOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING OFF REC 16666-1014 LIBRARY .334 20.63 F057 85.00 1.p 8 .QQ SCH OP 9.1$2 567.266 SCH DEBT :44 908 1.42 FIND WM DIST .597 0 36.88 61780 617ggpp EVG PRJ. .100 6:18 12pp3.08 1931.47 0100 01 4116 083 0780 PROP 2351 DOUGLAS RD 1009 TOTAL PRIOR YEARS TAXES DUE 37TH AVENUE ASSOCIATES GABLES TERRACE CONDO OPER 1O.QQQ 622.8Q 734.28 2351 DOUGLAS ROAD UNIT 1109 DBT SVC 1. 111.4 �UDI ILG.VU I.UUUU SCH OP 9.182 lce.vu Q.97 64t SCH DEBT 61 F.04 FIND 7 WM DIST :597 3.28 41.67 95307 W 500 25000 69807 EVG PRJ .100 6.98 1385.37 0100 01 4117 001 0170 PROP 3721-23 SW 27 ST TOTAL 2208.39 ALMANY INVESTORS LTD 27 GABLES MANOR SUB LOTS 8 THRU 11 BLK 2 PB 47-36 OPER 10.000 DBT SVC 1.790 41400.00 7410.60 48810.60 3711 SW ST MIAMI FL LOT SIZE 34020 Sa FT CNTY WD 6:?2 Y 24935.22 33134 OR 15817-3048 1192 1 & 16952-1514 DBT SVC 3465.18 NOT ADVERTISED- PAAB PENDING 1094 1 LIBRARY 334 F057 6808.00 1.pppppppp 1382.76 6808.00 SCH OP 9.182 38013.48 SCH DEBT .978 4048.92 FIND 047 . 194.58 WM DIST .597 2471.58 4140000 4140000 EVG PRJ .100 414.00 8173332 295 0100 01 4117 001 0190 PROP 2660 SW 37 AVE TOTAL 130544.32 E JOSE MUNOZ GABLES MANOR SUB 12 PB 47-36 BLK 2 OPER 1Q. DBT SVC 1. 884.21 158.27 1042.48 4445 RED ROAD ® MIAMI FL LOT LOT SIZE IRREGULAR CNTY wh op 6.83 574.?1 33155 OR 15955-2377 0693 1 DBT SVC 3 LIBRARY 334 29. F057 122.00 1.0000 122.00 SCH OP 9.182 811.88 SCH DEBT .9p478 86.48 WMNDIST .597 52.79 88421 88421 EVG PRJ .100 8.84 1722.25 2764.73 832 0100 01 4117 001 0210 PROP 3720 SW 26 TERR TOTAL JEFFREY A HARRISON 1600 RED RD GABLES MANOR SUB LOT 13 PB 47-36 BLK 2 OPER 1pp DBT SVC 1• 608.53 1QQ88 93 717.46 JE SIZE 60 W X 105 CNTY WD 6.p 366.52 MIAMI FL 33138 LOT OR 15329-421 1291 4 DBT SVC .837 LIBRARY . 34 5QQ.93 2Q. 2 F057 122.00 1.0 12 . SCH OP 9.1 558. DEBT 59.51 • FIND:97 2.86 3633 WM DIST .597 85853 25000 60853 EVG PRJ .100 6:09 1223.31 1940.77 0100 01 4117 001 0220 PROP 3730 SW 26 TERR TOTAL PRIOR YEARS TAXES DUE t # * t * # # # t # # t * t t * * t * t t * t * t t t t t * t * * t # * * # * t * * t t # # t t # # * * * * * t # * # # # # # * 4 # NESTOR F RNANDEZ GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 2 OPER 1Q. DBT SVC 1. 1227.86 219.79 1447.65 UE 3983 KUMQUAT AVE MIAMI FL LOT 14 LOT SIZE �p�ppp X BLK 105 CNTY WD 6.IV3 739.54 102.77 331335611 OR 13302-3519 0687 1 DBT SVC . LIBRARY 334 41.Q1 F057 122.00 1.0000, 122. SCH OP 9.182 1127.42 SCH DEBT .99748 12Q .n8 NDIST WM.597 773.30 122786 122786 EVG PRJ .100 12.28 2344.17 3791.82 ' 223 0100 01 4117 001 02M PROP # 4 # # # # # * # # t # t t t * * 3742 SW 26 TERR t # * # # # * # # t t t * # t t t TOTAL t * * * # # # t # * * * # * # # # t t * * # * * # # # # # # # # HECTOR A TORRES &W HANY 3750-52 SW 26 TERR GABLES MANOR SUB LOT 15 PB 47-36 BLK 2 OPER 1 DBT SVC 611.25 1gpq.41 720.66 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 105 CNTY WD 368.16 ,UE MIAMI FL 331347235 OR 16168-1125 1293 1 .pp3 DBT SVC .83 51.16 LIBRARY 334 20.42 F057 122.00 1.0000 122.00 SCH OP__ 9.182 561.25 ZONING § 2202 ARTICLE 22. AMENDMENTS Sec. 2201. Intent. This zoning ordinance, and the official zoning atlas and official schedule of district regu- lations which are a part thereof, may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, or repealed. It is the intent of this article that the planning advisory board and the zoning board will each serve as advisory and recommendatory instruments to the city commission for the specific categories of amendments for which each is responsible and in the manner herein set out. Sec. 2202. Initiation. of applications for amendment. 2202.1. Who may apply. Except as otherwise limited by this zoning ordinance, applications for zoning amendments may be made by: , (a) The city commission; (b) The planning advisory board; (c) The zoning board; (d) Any other department, board or agency of the city; (e) Any person other. than those listed in (a) through (d) above;provided, no person in this category (e) shall apply for an amendment for the rezoning of property except an owner or agent or attorney for an owner. 2202.2. Consideration by boards. All applications for zoning amendments shall be considered, either by the planning advi- sory board or the zoning board, as may herein be required, in the manner herein set out. 2202.3. Submission of applications for amendment. All applications for zoning amendments, whether required to be heard first by the plan- ning advisory board or first by the zoning board, shall be submitted in writing to the hearing boards division of planning, building and zoning. Applications under section 2202.1(e) shall contain a notarized statement by one hundred (100) percent of the owner or owners, of the property described in the application, or by tenant or tenants, with owner's written sworn -to consent, or by the attorney representing the owner(s), or by duly authorized agents, evidenced by a written power of attorney, if the agent is not a member of the Florida Bar, that the facts as represented in the application are true and correct to the best of the owner's knowledge or that of his attorney or agent. All applications shall be accompanied by all pertinent informa- tion required by this zoning ordinance and which may be required for proper consideration of the matter, including an affidavit by one hundred (100) percent of the owners of the property described in the application, ownership disclosure and a certified owners list of all properties Supp. No. 2 629 11788 • 0 § 2202 MIAMI, FLORIDA within three hundred seventy-five (375) feet of the subject property, along with the payment of all required fees and charges. (Ord. No. 11079, § 4, 7-22-93) Sec. 2203. Amendments to be heard by planning advisory board. The planning advisory board shall have responsibility for holding public hearings and making recommendations thereon to the city commission where the proposed amendments are initiated by agencies in section 2202.1(a) through (d). Sec. 2204. Amendments to be heard by zoning board. The zoning board shall have responsibility for holding public, hearings and making rec- ommendations thereon to the city commission where the proposed amendments are initiated. by persons under section 2202.1(e). Sec. 2205. Duties of receiving officer or agent upon amendment proposal being filed 2205.1. Determination of board jurisdiction, transmittal. Upon the filing of an application for amendment to this zoning ordinance, the department of planning, building and zoning shall determine whether the proposed amendment is re- quired, and the planning, building and zoning department shall consider whether the land use densities and intensities are compatible with and further the objectives, policies and land uses in the comprehensive plan. The planning, building and zoning department will then schedule the amendment on an agenda to be heard by the planning advisory board or the zoning board, as the case may be. 2205.2. Other City Code requirements. In connection with the hearings required to be held on zoning amendments, the hearing boards division of planning, building and zoning shall perform those functions set out in chapter 2, division 9, sections 2-148, 2-149, and 2-151; chapter 62; and other appropriate sections of the Miami City Code. Sec. 2206. Public notice. No recommendation to the city commission shall be made by the planning advisory board or the zoning board, as the case may be, regarding amendments to this zoning ordinance without notice of public hearing being given in the following manner: (a) Amendments to the official zoning atlas initiated under 2202.1 for public hearing before the planning advisory board or zoning board shall be noticed as set out in section 62-55(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Miami City Code. (b) Any amendment or addition to the text or the official schedule of district regulations of this zoning ordinance for public hearing before the planning advisory board shall / be noticed as set out in section 62-55(1) of the Miami City Code. Supp. No. 2 630 11788 L� i ZONING § 2208 Sec. 2207. Referral of applications to planning advisory board for proposals for amendments required to be heard by the zoning board. All applications for amendments required to be heard by the zoning board shall be re- ferred to the planning advisory board, and the planning advisory board may, but is not required to do so, make such report, recommendation, and advice in writing to the zoning board as it may deem appropriate in the case. The planning advisory board shall not be required to hold a public hearing prior to giving such report, recommendation or advice, but such report, recommendation, or advice shall not be authorized other than in a public meeting of the planning advisory, board where such item is a part of a previously prepared agenda of the planning advisory board. The public hearing scheduled before the zoning board, and the recommendation of the zoning board to the city -commission in the matter, shall not be delayed or recessed because no report, recommendation, or advice from the planning advisory board has been received in the matter, except upon request from the planning advisory board for such delay and the vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the zoning board_ to that effect. Lack of a report, recommendation, or advice in the matter by the planning advisory board shall not be deemed by the zoning board as constituting either planning advisory, board approval o� disapproval of the proposed amendment. Sec. 2208. Hearings of boards and report to city commission;, time limits. 2208.1. Zoning board. Public hearings required before the zoning board shall be held within sixty (60) days from the date the application for amendment is filed in the hearing boards division of the planning, building and zoning department. Unless a longer time be mutually agreed upon in the matter by the zoning board and the city commission, the zoning board shall file its recommendation within forty-five (45) days or, lacking a quorum, within sixty (60) days after the public hearing has been scheduled before the zoning board (see section 2208.3 below). 2208.2. Planning advisory board. Public hearings required before the planning advisory board shall be held within sixty (60) days after the proposal for amendment has been filed in the hearing boards division of the planning, building and zoning department. Where reports of other departments of the city are requisite to proper consideration of the matter, the proposal for amendment shall not be set for public hearing and the time requirement of this paragraph shall not run until -such reports have been certified by the appropriate city department head as being completed or ready for use in the matter. Unless a longer time be mutually agreed upon in the matter by the planning advisory board and city commission, the planning advisory board shall file its recommenda- tions with the city commission within forty-five (45) days or, lacking a quorum, within sixty (60) days after the public hearing has been scheduled before the planning advisory board, except for city initiated legislation, in which case there shall be no time limit (see section 2208.3 below). 2208.3. Exception to time limits. Supp. No. 1 631 s � � § 2208 MIAMI, FLORIDA The time limits set out in sections 2208.1 and 2208.2 shall not include any day of the month of August. (Ord. No. 10771, §1, 7-26-90; Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 10896, § 1, 6-20-91) Sec. 2209. Nature and requirements of planning advisory board report to city com- mission. For hearings required to be held by the planning advisory board, the report and recom- mendations of the planning advisory board to city commission shall show: (a) When pertaining to the rezoning of land where application has been initiated under categories (a) through (d), section 2202.1, that the planning advisory board has con- sidered such of the factors set out in section 2210 below as may be applicable in the case; (b) Where pertaining to other proposed amendments of this zoning ordinance, that planning advisory board considered and studied: 1. The relationship of the proposed amendment to the purposes and objectives of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, or portion or portions thereof, with appropriate consideration as to whether the proposed change will further the purposes of the comprehensive planning program, this zoning ordinance, and-. other city codes, regulations, and actions designed to implement the comprehen- sive planning program and the adopted comprehensiveplan; and 2. The need and justification for the proposed change; 3. The potential development of property being considered meets the concurrency requirements of state law under chapter 163. Sec. 2210. Nature and requirements of zoning board report to city commission. When pertaining to the rezoning of land under application made under section 2202.1(e), the report and recommendations of the zoning board shall show that the zoning board has studied and considered, where applicable, whether or not: (a) The proposed change conforms with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and does not require a plan amendment; (b) The proposed change is in harmony with the established land use pattern; (c) The proposed change is related to adjacent and nearby districts; (d) The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city; (e) The proposed change maintains the same or similar population density pattern and thereby does not increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; Supp. No. 1 632 l 11788 0 ZONING § 2212 (f) Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change; (g) Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary; (h) The proposed change positively influences living conditions in the -neighborhood; (i) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on traffic and does not affect public safety to a greater extent than the existing classification; 0) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on drainage as the existing classification; (k) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on light and air to adjacent as the existing classification; < y �i �z_rtqe/c1 r •. . .. ..:• , : :.= 1 < frl n t0,A (1) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on property values in the adlaj centcl area as the a dating assification, W-, ari�d.J.4 o_iW :�::t��c _Vih sa"s rim , (m) t� T iu�IrAr f '.i t .3�ri :•�rtr.{: ��, a� The proposed change will contribute to the improvem�en or development of acuagen t ► ?" fi 7� . 3 !C rzG_f Sa bi 9£f3 ,Jt " in property accor� with enstmg regulations, (n) The proposed change conveys the same treatment to the individual, owner�as to owners :,: within the same classification and the immediate. area and furthers: the protection,of , the public welfare; (o) 1 • . _i _ There are substantial reasons why the use of tfie property is'- nfairly liri tea under existing zoning, (p) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the pioposed use . in districts already permitting such use. Sec. 2211. Status of board reports and recommendations. The reports and recommendations of the planning advisory board or the zoning board required by sections 2208, 2209, or 2210 above, as the case may be, shall be advisory only and shall not be binding upon the city commission. In its deliberations on the reports and recom- mendations in the actions that it may take in regard to them, the city commission shall consider such of the requirements of sections 2209 or 2210 as may be applicable to the par- ticular matter before it. Sec. 2212. City commission action on board reports. 2212.1. Public hearing required. Upon receipt of the report and recommendations regarding amendments to the zoning ordinance by the planning advisory board or the zoning board, as the case may be, the city commission shall hold at least two (2) advertised public hearings on the proposed plan amend- ment in the following manner: (a) Amendments to the official zoning atlas shall be noticed as set out in section 62-55(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Miami City Code. 633 H "I WM16606 • • § 2212 MIAMI, FLORIDA (b) Any amendment or addition to the text or the official schedule of district regulations of this zoning ordinance for public hearing shall be noticed as set out in section 62-55(1) and (4) of the Miami City Code. 2212.2. Requirement where planning advisory board or zoning board report is adverse to pro- posed amendment. In the case of all proposed changes or amendments, if the "recommendation of the planning advisory board or the zoning board, as the case may be, is adverse to the proposal, such changes or amendments shall not be adopted except by the vote of at least three (3) members of the city commission.. Sec. 2213 Failure of city commission to act. 3; i "'c-1 ..I; 511.2. T1 �'9MGi Lnr F�.rf1 :1, i:•'.r ,r:— 2F f z'.� j•yy i .3 G}�.< If a recommendation of the planning advisoryboard or the:zoning hoard,: as be, is not legislatively decided within twelve (12) months from first reading by the sci tym +• ': .C."; t... TL,. -]i.� Jf!-e, .1.iiTC? tj, mission, the application �iipon which the report and�grecom♦men £lotion are based `shall �baeemed� L'� to have been denied except for amendments to the comprehensive plan ''and its corresponding zoning atlas amendment; in which case the-thhe period will be'extended an -additional twelve .,L_ (12) months: In both instances, theFprovisions of sections 62-54 and 62-55 of the" City Code will . not apply unless otherwise required by the city commission. No day 'of the month of'August' ­ -� shall be counted in the administration of this section.,; ., Sec. 2214. Limitations on the rezoning of property where application is initiated under section 2202.1(e). For applications initiated or proposed under section 2202.1(e), the following limitations.--., shall apply: 2214.1. Size limitation. Except where the proposal for the rezoning of property involves an extension of an existing district boundary, no change in the zoning classification of land shall be considered which involves less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet of net land area or two hundred (200) feet of street frontage on one (1) street. Proposals for HP Historic Preservation Overlay Districts shall be exempt from this requirement. The city commission may, by a vote of not less than three (3) members, approve the rezoning of property to a less intense designation than that applied for in situations where, in the opinion of the commission and upon the recommendation of the planning, building and zoning department, the specific rezoning applied for would work to the detriment of the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, whereas a rezoning to a less intense designation would not. 2214.2. Limitation on further consideration after denial. 634 11788 l ZONING § 2215 Whenever the city commission has denied an application for the rezoning of property, the zoning board shall not thereafter: (a) Consider any further application for the same rezoning of any part or all of the same property, for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of such action; (b) Consider an application for any other kind of rezoning on any part or allof the same property for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of such action,--.-.,.-,. (c) Consider an application for rezoning that involves the same owner's property within two hundred (ZUO) feet of property 'granted a change within a period of twelve (12) months. -... - 2214.3. Limilatiori on further consideration after change.. i,Vhenever the city commission has thangd the coning cassificationofproperty: by amen men the zoiiin :board shall not thereafter consider any petition � orr`ezonnag of nII� an n ; of the same property for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of such action?"- 2214.4. Limitation onfurther coyt nsideration a)er vo`�uiiiary ivithdrauidl ojdpplicYation: ``L: Whenever sih) p licaiif, has voluntaiilywithdrawn an application for rezoning of property during either first or second reading before the city commission, the zoning :board shall �,aOA thereafter consider an application for the same property for eighteen (18) months from the da .c3 of such *action, nor consider an 'application for any kind of rezoning of any part or all of the same property for twelve (12) months from the date of such action. 2214.5. Waiver of time limits. The time limits set by sections 2214.2, 2214.3 and 2214.4 may be waived by a vote of not less than three (3) members of the city commission when such action is deemed necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate development of the city in the context of the adopted compre- . hensive plan, or portion or portions thereof. (Ord. No. 10771, §1, 7-26-90) Sec. 2215. Requirements concerning changes in original applications after processing begins. The following limitations and requirements apply where changes are made in original applications for amendment after processing begins: 2215.1. Substantial changes defined, changes prior to notice of public hearing. Substantial changes affect the essential part of the application, not just the form of the application, as determined by the zoning administrator, upon a request to review proposed modifications to applications for variances, Special Exceptions, Major Use Special Permits or zoning atlas amendments by persons defined in section 2202.1(e), using the following criteria: (a) The requested change exceeds the zoning regulations; 635 11788 C, 1� u § 2215 MIAMI, FLORIDA (b) The footprint of the building is proposed to be moved by more than ten (10) feet in any horizontal direction; (c) The height of the building or any portion thereof is proposed to be increased by more than five (5) feet or five (5) percent of the height of the building, whichever is greater, in a vertical direction; or - (d) Any other change which, in the evaluation of the zoning administrator, has not been part of the prior application, has. not been reviewed and evaluated by the staff, and has a serious effect on the project proposed by the application. By mutual agreement between the director of the department of planning, building and zoning and other affected parties, substantial changes in. original applications may be made;,;:; prior to publication of notice of hearing, provided that, where such• changes require ma" alteration of: department of panning, ,building;and wAing..reviews;;and recommend did . ... -:. t ,- already prepared and based on the original application, -a',second: application 1'ee shall requireo, 2215.2. Changes subsegrlent to notice.of.hearing, prior to hearing, or at hearing After notice of public hearing before the planning advisory board, zoning. board, or, a _Y commission, as the case 'may be, has been given, no change: , shall be ,made . in the, original application for zoning amendment which would have the 'effect of creating substantial diffi ences between the matter advertised and the matter upon which hearing is actually held, 2215.3. Changes during planning advisory board, zoning board, or commission consideration.; Upon completion of the public hearing by the planning advisory board, zoning board, or" city commission, as the case maybe, no proposed amendment shall be recommended,or adopted, as the case may be, which is substantially at variance with the proposal upon which the public hearing was held. 2215.4. Procedure where substantial changes are proposed. Where substantial changes are proposed: (a) Subsequent to the notice of public hearing, prior to public hearing, or at the public hearing, or (6) After the public hearing but before recommendation or adoption, as the case may be, has been made; such proposed changes are to be treated as a proposed new amendment and subject to the applicable procedures and standards of this article as for proposed new amendments or, in the case of developments of regional impact or Major Use Special Permits, subject to the proce- dures set forth in article 17. (Ord. No. 10771, §1, 7-26-90; Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 10877, §1, 4-25-91) 636 [The next page is 651] u t LAW OFFICES SHUBIN & BASS P R O F E S S 1.0 N A L A S S 0 C I A T 1 O N Via Facsimile Transmission and U.S. Mail February 19, 1999 Ms. Terisita Fernandez Clerk, Hearing Board Section City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Re: Change of Zoning and Proposed Amendment of City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan For Properties Located at Approximately 3674, 3680, 3690 S.W. 26th Terrace and 3675 S.W. 27th Street/Zoning Case No. 1998-0151/Planning Case No. 98-036 Dear Terisita: This correspondence is transmitted to you on behalf of Almay Investors Ltd. ("Almany"), the owner of real property located at 2660 SW 37th Avenue which is within 375 feet of the property which is the subject of the above -referenced applications. The purpose of this correspondence is to inform you that all public hearings which have been held on the application have been legally deficient in that they did not properly notice Almany, thus depriving Almany and its investors of due process protections afforded to them by the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, the Code of the City of Miami, and applicable Florida statutes. The net effect of this improper notice is to void all action taken to date on these applications and require that new action be taken, after public notice, by the Zoning Board, the Planning Advisory Board, and the City Commission. The underlying facts, as revealed by the attached public records, should not be in dispute. First, as set forth in the attached 1997 and 1998 property tax statements for the property at 2660 SW 37 Avenue ("Exhibit A"), the mailing address of the property owner is set forth as 3711 SW 27t'h Street, Miami. Second, and as set forth in the attached materials prepared by Florida Real Estate Decisions, Inc. for the purpose of transmitting appropriate notice to affected property owners ("Exhibit B"), both the property located at 2660 SW 37 Avenue, as well as the property located at 3711 SW 27 Street, are recognized MIAMI TAMPA 46 S.W. 1st Street, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130 707 Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602 Ph:305.381.6060 Fx:305.381.9457 Ph:813.223.4785 Fx:813.223.4787 11788 as being owned by Almany at an address which is not set forth on the official property tax records, i.e. 2700 SW 23 Terrace. More significantly, the attached copies of what appear to be the mailing labels for future hearings ("Exhibit C") shows two references to Almany. The first reference, in the same type face of all of the other labels, improperly lists their official mailing address as 2700 SW 23 Terrace. The second reference, in a different type face with the correct mailing address (3711 SW 27 Street), was only typed within the last month after Almany's representatives alerted you to the previous notice deficiencies. As you well know, all notices for the above -referenced application must be mailed to the mailing address of affected property owners as identified by reference to the latest ad valorem tax records. , See Fla. Stat. §166. 041 (3) (c) (1) This did not occur, and Almany has been prejudiced by this. lack of notice to the extent that it was unable to present evidence in opposition to the application at the Zoning Board hearim., the Planning Advisory Board hearing, and the first hearing be ore the City Commission. This prejudice is particularly evident where the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs after the first reading by the City Commission. If public records exist which support the position that the notice of these applications was -legally correct, please proved it to me immediately so that I might reconsider this firm's position. In the absence of such proof that the notice was sufficient, demand is hereby made that you void all action taken up.to this date and process these applications as new applications with the proper notice. Your failure to inform me of your decision by 5:00 p.m. in Friday, February 26, 1999, will be construed as inaction on your part, and Almany will promptly avail itself of all available legal remedies to address this legal error. incerel J �h. or the Firm cc: Almany Investors/, Ltd. Joel Maxwell, Esq. Ms. Ana M. Gelabert-Sanchez Ms. Lourdes Slazyk Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esq. SHUBIN & BASS, P.A. - 11788 Metro -Dade Department of Property Appraisal 111 NW 1st Street, Suite 710 Miami, Florida 33128-1994 R/E FOL,IO: 01-4117-001-0190 MILLAGE CODE: 0100 ullar�lr�fall fill III rrllroil alai t-iirIII IA. rlln111fill. OO°'*AUT0*'5-DIGIT 33134 ALMANY INVESTORS.LTD 503" 3711 SW 2717H ST , 727 MIAM4 FL 33134-7236 Property Addrtss• 2660 SW 37 VE faxing Authority) Your proporty taxes Your taxes this year Your taxes this year Iasi year It proposed budget It no budget change change its made Is made County I 19377-65 1 19938.65 19288.74 Public Schools: NOTICE OF PROPOSED . PROPERTY TAXES DO NOT PAY THIS IS NOT A BILL The taxing authorities wfveh levy property taxes against your property will soon hold Public our to adopt budgets and tax rates for the next year. The purpose of these Public Hearings is to receive opinions from the general public and to answer questions on the proposed tax change and budget Prior To Taking Final Action. Each taxing authority may Amend or Alter Its proposals at the hearing. GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-346 LOTS 8 THRU 11 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 34020 SQ FT A public hearing on the proposed taxes and budget will be held: ;O5.01 PM COMMLSSION CHAMBERS I I I NW 1 ST. MIAMI (305) 375-5143 By State Law I 26630.03 19474.01 18671.17 9/10,5:01 PM.1450NE2AVE By Local Board 8040.16 7813.72 M AIaFL (305)995-1226 NIIAMI 27323.10 28230.26 27318.31 9/09, 5-05 PKC CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMER DR (305) 4I6-1500 water Management District 1628.09 EVRGLDS CP 284.63 Independent Special Districts 108.16 Voter Approved - Debt Payments Total Property Taxes Your Property Volvo last VOW 1996 Your Prwgmy Value this ytart 1829.18 294.08 147.04 1629.21 1 9/10 5:15 PMSFWM DIST AUDITORIUM 285.26 3301GUNCLUB RD,WPB(561)686.88W 108.81 11072.13 1 11630.89 1 11630.89 9/11, 530 FM, JU1NO BCH TOWN HALL. 340OCEAN DR (561)627-3386 INCLUDES COUNTY, SCHOOL, MIAIVE 86423.79 89584.27 86746.11 COLUMN 1' COLUMN 2- COLUMN 3' Market Value Assewed Value E=Mpdons 2846305 1 2846305 -Fof details on independent special digricta and voter approved de contact your tax Cotloctor at (305) 27014916 TBxaDle Value 0 2846305 -SEE REVERSE S FOR EXPLANATIC l 19971 2940805 1 2940805 1 0 1 2940805 1 .IF YOU PP.PL THr. MAlafl<T VAIAJr CIr YTMIR PRr1PrRTY L1 INAt+CtIRATE OR O= NOT RGFLBCT FAIR MARK$T VALUE. CONTACT YOUR COUNTY PROR6911TV APPRAISER AT. 3754081 111 NW I STREET 8TH FLOOR (8:30 AM, TO 4:30 PM) • IF T"a PROPCRTY APPRAIMM3 OrrtCC IS UNAeLC TO MOM THE MAT q AS To MAWAT VALUQ• YOU MAY ME A PgnrcN FOR AOA WrW9r4T WM 1 TH6 VALur. AW=Tm6NT DOARD. PfiMION FORMS ARE AVAILADLC FROM THE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER ANO MUST Or. FILED ON OR QIPORE: SEPT. 16, 1997 - • YOUR MNALTAx SILL MAY CONTAIN NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS WHICH MAY NOT !E RerLECTEO ON THIS NOTICC SUCH AS ASSE55M_NTS rOR ROAM. DAAmw01; OAPOACC. rtme. LKyfrm, wAren. SewER.OF C CITY, OR ANY rrt CIAL013MCT. DF Exhibit "A" — 11788 MILL CD: b Q f011O:•v 0� 4 �!�� NAME: AN, _JQ_ LMANY LVL:>IUIIl.lU + �- S C H O O L A N 0 S T A T E D I S T _R I C T S _ AI+lOUN1 AAIDIINI IIUE IF PAID NI o AUTFgHiTY RA AMOUNT AUlFiORITY FIATF L." Ur—'9=b82Td01TU 3 DOOOUQ WI QU— IEC 125335 95 N SCN DEB 0.9780000 4046.92 FIND 0.0470000 194.58co AN 1266 8.07 m c 00 WM DIST 0.5970000 2471.58 SUB TOT 45142.56 EB b2?99 0.20 AR 1292L2.32 C- rt1� DBT S CZ3.7900074b0.60 SUB TOT 488110.60 n co A D E O U T Y D I S T R I C T S NT`f—wtr 023dtiD - L 3465.b8 vnt vnrlons DBT SVC 0.83700U0 LIBRARY 0.3340000 ]1382.76 2978 FOTA(�y1TUE 4140000 SUB TOT .16 U� O N - A 0 VALOREM A SS ES S 7 A J + Z. w SPECIALASSESSMES: GIST RAT O(7lAGFJUNIIS F-KTA�I�ESuEFosr----1.09--Srr67. U9---5g76_: Ua . TAXABLE VALUE ` SUB TOT 547b.00 4L40000 gVWMVEMENTIXSTRICTS' T 7ERE5T !E .YEARS MEREST IN9TALl�1E ir O w a DTUDC couuelvis: NEEDS SSISE TA CE CALL 305 27U-ll 4916 305 372"63pgcaUNT ♦ DETACH HERE T ME Iflol •t KI IAN DAVE COUNTY YETPDAOE COMBINED TAX BILL 498 REAL_ PROPERTY TAXES — CORRECTED_ NOTICE !#_ 1 �p18C AMOUNT _ _ pUE If PAID IN - ALUATIONS OTAL—TIA�UE`4��iLI00�4-NOv-24043:03 MI C E O 1 ER 3% DEC 2% 125335.95 12bb 8.07 MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE IN V.S. FUNDS DRAWII ,JAN ON us. BANKS 10: Lys FED U%MAR 12277` 20.20 129212.32 0295 DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR SEQ 000000-000231 DELINQUENT AFTER HARCII 31 12/16/1498-NOV GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 INVESTORS LTD LOTS 8 TNRU Lb BLK 2 .ALMANY LOT SIZE 34020 S4Q FT 16952-1514 3711 SW 27331ST OR 15817-3048 1192 1 8 MIAM 80036 01411700101408 0012921232 00OU0000 0000000 UODUUOU UUUUO 5 Florida Deal Estate Decisions, Inc. t July 30, 1998 City of Miami Hearing Boards.Division Planning, Building and Zoning Division 275 N.W. 2 Street, Room 226 Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Property Owners List Within 375 feet of: MOTTL PARR PB 39-60 LOTS 1 THRU 9 BLR 2 W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOTS 11 & 12 & LOT 13 LESS W20FT FOR ST 16375 N.H. 18th Avenue suite 300 Miami, F1. 33162 (305)757-6884 3195 N. Powerline Ad. suite 104 Pompano Beach, F1. 33069 (954)761-9003 180 St. David's Way West Palm Beach, F1. 33414 (561)798-4423 This is to certify that the attached ownership list, map and mailing labels are a complete and accurate representation of the real estate property and property owners within 375 feet of the subject property listed above. This reflects the most current records on file in the Miami -Dade County Tax Assessor's office. Si ly, Ray unt RNH/lv cc: A. Vicky Levia, Esq. BILZIN SUMBERG DUNN & AXELROD LLP 2500 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Exhibit "B" —C LJ L� 01-4116-000-0220 2795 SW 37 AVE 16 54 41 10 AC SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SW1/4 TRACT 5 EST OF C G TOUSEY LESS W20FT & POR IN SW COR PER OR 3847/313 LOT SIZE 435600 SQUARE FEET 01-4116-002-0010 2641 SW 37 AVE MOTTL PARR PB 39-60 LOTS 1 & 2 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 100 01-4116-002-0020 2645 SW 37 AVE MOTTL PARR PB 39-60 LOTS 3 TO 5 INC BLK 1 LOT SIZE 93.000 X 100 01-4116-002-0030 3691 SW 26 TERR 16 54 41 MOTTL PARR PB 39-60 LOT 6 BLR 1 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 01-4116-002-0031 3681 SW 26 TERR 16 54 41 MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT 7 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 01-4116-002-0040 3671 SW 26 TERR 16 54 41 MOTTL PARR PB 39-60 LOT 8 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 CITY OF MIAMI-DEPT OF P&D ASSET MANAGEMENT.DIVISION 444 SW 2 AVE STE #325 MIAMI FL 33130-1910 FIRC DOUGLAS LTD 2299 DOUGLAS RD 4TH FL MIAMI FL 33145-3000 FIRC DOUGLAS LTD 2299 DOUGLAS RD 4TH FL MIAMI FL 33145-3000 FIRC DOUGLAS LTD 2299 DOUGLAS RD 4TH FL MIAMI FL 33145-3000 FIRC DOUGLAS LTD 2299 DOUGLAS RD 4TH FL MIAMI FL 33145-3000 ROY N REBELLO 3673 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2705 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 1 0 01-4116-002-0050 3665 SW 26 TERR 16 54 41 MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT BLK 1 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 01-4116-002-0060 3661 SW 26 TERR 16- 54 41 MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT 10 BLK 1 01-4116-002-0070 3655 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT 11 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 48.500.X 143 01-4116-002-0080 3651 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT 12 & 13 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 97.000 X 143 01-4116-002-0090 3633 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT 14 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 01-4116-002-01.00 3625 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT 15' BLK 1 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 . 0 RAUL & VIVIAN GARCIA 46 JACKSON ST YONKERS NY 10701 ORLANDO ROCHE &W EUGENIA 3661 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2705 SILVIA GARCIA 3655 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FLA 33133-2705 z EVILIO CAPOTE SR &W RAQUEL EVILIO CAPOTE JR &W BLANCA 3651-53 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2705 TAIMY FIALLO 3631 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133 CAMILO E LOPEZ 3625-27 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133 01-4116-002-0110 EUGENIO MOLINET &W MARIA 3615 SW 26 TERR 3615 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 MIAMI FL 3313.3-2705 LOT 16 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 51.480 X 143 ' 11788 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 2 s 0 01-4116-002-0151 3668 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARR PB 39-60 LOT 10 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 01-4116-002-0160 3664 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARR PB 39-60 UNDIV 1/2 INT IN LOT 11 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 24.25 X 143 01-4116-002-0161 3666 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 UNDIV. 1/2 INT IN LOT 11 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 24.25 X 143 . 01-4116-002-0170 3650 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT 12 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 01-4116-002-0180 3644 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 UNDIV 1/2 INT IN LOT 13 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 24.250 X 143 01-4116-002-0181 3646 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARR PB 39-60 UNDIV 1/2 INT IN LOT 13 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 24.250 X 143 JOMOR MANAGEMENT INC 247 ALMERIA AVE CORAL GABLES FL 33134-5903 MARIA LLERENA. PINO & EMIGDIO LLERENA &W TIMOTEA 3664 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2706 EMIGDIO LLERENA &W TIMOTEA 3666 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2706 JESUS GONZALEZ &W CARMEN 1751 SW 14 ST MIAMI FL 33145 MIGUEL CAMACHO &W JOSEFA 3644 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2706 OSCAR CAMACHO &W NATALIA 3646 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2706 01-4116-002-0190 JOSE SAMPEDRO &W HAYDEE 3636 SW 26 TERR 3636 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 MIAMI FLA 33133-2706 LOT 14 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 11788 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 3 LJ 01-4116-002-0200 3626 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT 15 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 48.500 X 143 01-4116-002-0210 3616 SW 26 TERR MOTTL PARK PB 39-60 LOT 16 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 51.490 X 143 01-4116-004-0040 2724 SW 36 AVE CORAL PL REVISED PB 43-57 LOT 4 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 58.040 X 135 01-4116-004-0050 2714 SW 36 AVE CORAL PL REVISED PB 43-57 LOT 5 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 58.040 X 133 01-4116-004-0060 2700 SW 36 AVE CORAL PL REVISED PB 43-57 LOT 6 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 58.040 X 131 01-4116-004-0070 3604 SW 26 TERR CORAL PL REVISED PB 43-57 LOT 9 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 47.900 X 126 01-4116-004-0080 2622 SW 36 AVE CORAL PL REVISED PB 43-57 LOT 10 LESS W66FT BLK 1 LOT SIZE 57.100 X 83 ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ &W ANGELA 3439 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2037 MANUEL RODRIGUEZ 3616 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2706 YOLANDA G BUENO 2724 SW 36 AVE MIAMI FL 33133-2724 ram. AUDRE BURT 2714 SW 36 AVE MIAMI FL 33133-2724' SAUL J LAGUILLO &W REINA A 2700 SW 36 AVE MIAMI FLA 33133-2724 EFREN SOZA &W MIRTA HERMES SOZA &W YOLANDA 3604 SW 26. TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2706 DIANA M LOPEZ 6300 MAYNADA CORAL GABLES FL 33146 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS,"INC. 4 U 01-4116-004-0090 3605 SW 26 TERR CORAL PL REVISED PB 43-57 W66FT LOT 10 BLR 1 LOT SIZE 66.000 X 83 01-4116-004-0100 2614 SW 36 AVE 16 54 41 CORAL PL R.EVISED PB 43-57 LOT 11 BLR 1 LOT SIZE 60.050 X 119 01-4116-006-0010 3609 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 1 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 150 01-4116-006-0011 3615 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 UNDIV 1/2 INT LOT 2 LOT SIZE 25.000 X 150 01-4116-006-0012 3611 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 UNDIV 1/2 INT LOT 2 LOT SIZE 25.000 X 150 01-4116-006-0020 3617 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS, LOT 3 FERNANDO T GARCIA-CHANON TRUST 1544 TARAGONA DR CORAL GABLES FL 33134-2300 JORGE A CARDOZA &W GREGORIA 2614 SW 36 AVE MIAMI FL 33133-2722 DELIA FREIRE 10925 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33165-2301. PEDRO MEDINA &W MARIA L 3611-15 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2711 PEDRO MEDINA &W MARIA L 3611-12 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2711 FREDERICK HALL &W LULA MAY 3617 SW 27 ST PB-4-26 MIAMI FLA 33133-2711 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 150 01-4116-006-0021 3627 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 4 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 150 CAROLYN A HALL 3627 SW 27 ST MIAMI FLA 33133-2711 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 0 01-4116-006-0030 30 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 5. LESS S6.88FT FOR R/W LOT SIZE 50.O00 X 143 01-4116-006-0040 3637 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 6 LESS S6.88FT FOR R/W LOT SIZE 50.000 X 143 t LIDIA LEON 3631 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133 ROLANDO ATESIANO &W ADDY 3635-37 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33145 01-4116-006-0050 SOL MANDEL 3663 SW 27 ST 1800 NE 114 ST APT 2305 16 54 41 NORTH MIAMI FL 33181-3414 W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 7 01-4116-006-0060 SOL MANDEL 3669 SW 27 ST 1800 NE 114 ST APT 2305 16 54 41 NORTH MIAMI FL 33181-3414 W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOTS 8 & 9 01-4116-006-0070 VILMA FONSECA 3671 SW-27 ST 3671-73 SW 27 ST 16 54 41 MIAMI FL 33133-2711 W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 10 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 150 01-4116-006-0110 2701 SW 37 AVE W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 14 LESS W20FT & ALL LOT 15 LOT SIZE 150.000 X 88 NICOLA LENOCI-TORITTO &W MARIA PO BOX 96 Q693 MIAMI FLA 33296 01-4116-006-0130 FREDERICK HANNA &W BETTYE 3676 SW 27 ST 3676 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 MIAMI FLA 33133-2712 LOT 16 LESS E10FT LOT SIZE 40.000 X 150 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 11781 01-4116-006-0140 REFERENCE ONLY W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 17 & E10FT OF LOT 16 N/A/U 01-4116-068 EL SALVADOR CONDO 01-4116-006-0150 DELIA FREIRE 3666 SW 27 ST 10925 SW 26 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-2.6 MIAMI FL 33165-2301 LOTS 18 & 19 LOT SIZE 100.000 X 150 01-4116-006-0160 3642 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 20 LESS N6.87FT FOR R/W LOT SIZE 50.000 X 143 01-4116-006-0161 3642 SW 27 ST W D SANDFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 21'LESS N6.87FT FOR R/W LOT SIZE 50.000 X 143 01-4116-006-0162 3634 SW 27 ST W D SANDFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 22 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 150 01-4116-006-0170 3620 SW 27 ST 16 54' 41 W D SANFORDS SUB PB 4-26 LOT 23 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 150 IDELIZA.POLANCO 3650-52 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133 ABILIO RAMOS SILVIA M CORZO 3640-42 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133 CITY OF MIAMI P 0 BOX 330708 COCONUT GROVE STAT MIAMI FL 33233 DEBORAH MARTIN 3628 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133 01-4116-006-0190 HILDELISA LASTRE 3634 SW 27 ST 351 FLAGAMI BLVD W D SANFORDS'SUB PB 4-26 MIAMI FL 33144 LOT 24 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 150 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 117887 • 01-4116-006-0200 3614 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 25 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 150 01-4116-006-0210 3608 SW 27 ST W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 26 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 150 01-4116-015-3590 2601 SW 37 AVE 16 54 41 SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 LOTS 1 THRU 6 LESS W10FT FOR R/W & LOTS 7 & 8 BLK 13 LOT SIZE 30400 SQ FT 01-4116-015-3620 3684 SW 26 ST SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 LOT 9 BLK 13 LOT SIZE 40.000 X 160 01-4116-015-3630 3680 SW 26 ST SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 LOT 10 BLK 13 LOT SIZE 40.000 X 160 01-4116-015-3640 3674 SW 26 ST SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 LOT 11 BLK 13 LOT SIZE 40.000 X 120 ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ &W ESTHER 3635 SW 24 TERR MIAMI FL 33145 LEANDRO GONZALEZ &W ODALYS 3608-10 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2712 HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INC %CORAL GABLES MEDICAL PLAZA 2601 SW 37 AVE #805 MIAMI FL 33133-2751 HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INC ATTN: MR GERRY A NECUZE 3100 DOUGLAS RD CORAL GABLES FL 33134 ANNIE MAY KNAPPE 923 SPRINGDALE RD N E ATLANTA GA 30306 RITA M MARTINEZ 36.74 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33133 01-4116-015-3650 BARBARA ANN BRYANT 3670 SW 26 ST 9220 SW 12 ST SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 MIAMI FL 33174-3108 LOT 12 & W10FT OF LOT 13 BLK 13 LOT SIZE IRREGULAR FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 1 1 7 J 8 9 u 01-4116-015-3660 3666 SW 26 ST SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 W20FT OF LOT 14 & E30FT OF LOT 13 ELK 13 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 160 01-4116-015-3670 3660 SW 26 ST SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 W30FT OF LOT 15 & E20FT OF LOT 14 ELK 13 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 160 01-4116-015-3680 3642 SW 26 ST 16 54 41 SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 LOT 16 & E10FT LOT 15 ELK 13 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 160 01-4116-015-3681 3630 SW 26 ST SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 LOT 17 ELK 13 LOT SIZE 40 X 160 01-4116-015-3690 3626 SW 26 ST 16 54 41 SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 LOT 18 ELK 13 LOT SIZE 40.000 X 160 01-4116-015-3700 3620 SW 26 ST SILVER BLUFF HOMESITES PB 8-101 LOT 19 BLK 13 LOT SIZE 40.000 X 160 ARMANDO SANDE &W LOURDES G 3666 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2011 EDUARDO & BENIGNO NAVARRO & NILA S NAVARRO 3660 SW 26 ST. MIAMI FL 33133-2011 FIDEL CAMPS &W ILDELISA 2377 SW 15 ST MIAMI FL 33145-1205 NOEL A ROJAS &W ANNABELLE C & JUANA E .CARAMES 3630 SW26 ST MIAMI FL 33173 GREGORIO ESTEVEZ 3626 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2011 GUDRUN E ZSIRAI 3616 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2011 01-4116=068-0001 REFERENCE ONLY 3670 SW 27 ST EL SALVADOR CONDO DESC W D SANFORDS PB 4-26 LOT 17 & E10FT OF LOT 16 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. .1 1 A " 9 r� LJ 01-4116-068-0010 3672 SW 27 ST 1 EL SALVADOR CONDO UNIT 1 UNDIV .50% INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS OFF REC 13006-2299 01-4116-068-0020 3672 SW 27 ST EL SALVADOR CONDO UNIT 2 UNDIV .50% INT IN COMMON ELEMENTS OFF REC 13006-2299 01-4117-001-0060 3741 SW 26 TERR 17 54 ,41 GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 6 BLK' 1 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 110 01-4117-001-0070 3731 SW 26 TERR 17 54 41 GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 7 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 110 01-4117-001-0080 3721 SW 26 TERR GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 8 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 110 01-4117-001-0090 3711 SW 26 TERR GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 9 BLK.1 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 110 IVAN A SUAREZ &W'AGNES & MELVIN J & NORMA I,SUAREZ 3670 SW 27 ST UNIT 1 MIAMI FL 33133-2712 MARINA B TUNERMANN 3672 SW 27 ST UNIT 2 MIAMI FL 33133-2712 MANUEL D TEJEDA &W FRANCISCA & 3741 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33134-7234 WILBUR PEARSON &W BARBARA 6880 SW 98 ST MIAMI FL 33156-3045 DIEGO FENANDEZ & RAIMUNDO FENAANDEZ 3721 SW 26 TERR MIAMI.FL 33134-7234 BONZO ENTERPRISES INC 2658 SW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33133-2726 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 1178810 • 01-4117-001-0100 2650 SW 37 AVE GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 10 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 110.000 X 92 01-4117-001-0150 3741 SW 27 ST GABLES MANOR SUB. PB 47-36 LOT 5 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 105 01-4117-001-0161 3731 SW 27 ST GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 UNDIV 1/2 INT IN LOT 6 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 30.00 X 105 01-4117-001-0162 3733 SW 27 ST .-GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 - UNDIV 1/2 INT IN LOT 6 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 30.00 X 105 01-4117-001-0170 3723 SW 27 ST GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 7 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 105 01-4117-001-0180 3711 SW 27 ST GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 8 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 105 01-4117-001-0190 2660 SW 37 AVE GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOTS 8 THRU 11 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 34020 SQ FT . 0 BONZO ENTERPRISE INC 2658 SW 37 AVE- MIAMI FL.33133-2726 JULIO A DELSOL &W AMANDA B 3741 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7236 CHARLES F BERNOT JR &W CAROL M 3731 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7236 EDYTHE P BERNOT 3733 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7236 CAROL S THOMPSON 3721 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7236 ALMANY INVESTORS LTD 2700 SW 23 TERR MIAMI FL 33145-3300 ALMANY INVESTORS LTD 2700 SW 23 TERR MIAMI FL 33145 11788 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 11 • 01-4117-001-0220 3730 SW 26 TERR GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 13. BLK 2 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 105 01-41.17-001-0230 3742 SW 26 TERR GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 14 BLK 2 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 105 01-4117-001-0330 3743 SW 27 TERR 17 54 41 GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 6 BLK 3 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 114 01-4117-001-0340 3731' SW 27 TERR GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 7 BLK 3 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 114 01-4117-001-0350 3723 SW 27 TERR 17 54 41 GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 8 BLK 3 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 115 01-4117-001-0360 3713 SW 27 TERR GABLES MANOR'SUB PB 47-36 LOT 9 BLK 3 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 114 JEFFREY A HARRISON 1600 RED RD MIAMI FL 33138 NESTOR FERNANDEZ 3983 KUMQUAT AVE MIAMI FL 33133-5611 GEORGE L GUEVARA PO BOX 330412. COCONUT GROVE FL 33233 WALTER V MORROW 108 SARTO AVE CORAL GABLES FL 33134-7248 HAROLD E MILLER &W MARGARET 8100 SW 10 TERR MIAMI FL 33144-4256 MARIANO E ]�ERNANDEZ &W OLGA 1925 SW 97 AVE MIAMI FL 33165-7602 01-4117-001-0370 MARCO A SAINZ &W ANA M 2720 SW 37 AVE 2720-22 SW 37 AVE GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 MIAMI FL 33133-2728 LOT 10 LESS N39FT BLK 3 LOT SIZE 76.000 X 89 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 12 01-4117-001-0380 2712 SW 37 AVE GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 S36FT LOT11 & N39FT LOT 10 BLK 3 LOT SIZE 75.000 X 91 01-4117-001-0390 27.02 SW 37 AVE GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 11 LESS S36FT BLK 3 LOT SIZE 76.000 X 92 01-4117-001-0400 3712 SW 27 ST GABLES.MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 12 BLK 3 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 112 01-4117-001-0410 3720 SW 27 ST GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 13 BLK 3 LOT SIZE. 60.000 X 112 01-4117-001-0420 3732 SW 27 ST GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 14 BLK 3 LOT SIZE 60 400 X 112 01-4117-001-0430 3740 SW 27 ST 17 54 41 GABLES MANOR SUB PB 47-36 LOT 15 BLK.3 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 112 01-4117-002-0010 2732 SW 37 AVE 17 54 41 DOUGLAS MANOR PB 7-157 LOT 1 & N15FT OF LOT 2 LESS E10FT FOR DOUGLAS RD BLK 1 LOT SIZE 70.000 X 108 0 FOUAD SCANDAR &W SILVIA 2710 DOUGLAS RD MIAMI FL 33133 JOYCE CHADROFF 1931 NE 197 TERR MIAMI FL 33179 JESUS REGUEIRA &W REMEDIOS 3712. SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7237 ELIEZER SOLER &W DIGNA 3720-22 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7237 R STUBBS &W FRANCES 7520 RED RD STE-D MIAMI FL 33014-4315 JUAN ALVAREZ &W CONCEPCION 5931 SW 9 TERR MIAMI FL 3.3144-5016 K M PROPERTY INVESTMENT INC 1502 CORUNA AVE CORAL GABLES FL 33156-6318 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 13 01-4117-002-0012 2756 SW 37. AVE 17 54 41 L E DOUGLAS MANOR PB 7-157 S4.80FT OF LOT 23 & ALL LOT 24 LESS E10FT THEREOF FOR R/W BLX 1 LOT SIZE 59.800 X 108 01-4117-002-0013 2736 SW 37 AVE 17 54 41 DOUGLAS MANOR PB 7-157 LOT 2 LESS N15FT & LESS S10FT ALSO LESS E10FT FOR DOUGLAS RD BLK 1 LOT SIZE 30.000 X 108 01-4117-002-0020 3720 SW 27 TERR DOUGLAS MANOR PB 7-157 LOT 3 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 110 01-4117-002-0030 3736 SW 27 TERR DOUGLAS MANOR PB 7-157 LOT 4 BLK 1 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 110 01-4117-002-0040 3738 SW 27 TERR DOUGLAS MANOR PB 7-157 LOT 5 BLX 1 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 110 01-4117-002-0202 2750 SW 37 AVE DOUGLAS MANOR PB 7-157 S10FT OF.LOT 2 & LOT 23 LESS S4.80FT & LESS E10FT THEREOF BLK 1 LOT SIZE 60.200 X 108 ALICE AZAR & GLORIA JEAN AZAR 68.20 W FLAGLER ST #309 MIAMI FL 33144-2873 K M PROPERTY INVESTMENT INC 1502 CORUNA AVE CORAL GABLES FL 33156-6318 JORGE PINEIRO &W CARMEN & ILEANA PINEIRO 1I'Rg7 SW 47 ST MIAMI FL 33175-4901 MANUEL MUNIZ '&W ESTRELLA 1305 CASTILE AVE CORAL GABLES FL 33134-4745 ROSA E PUELLO 649 NAVARRE AVE CORAL GABLES FL 33134-3760 JAMIRA CORD 2750 DOUGLAS RD MIAMI FL 33134 11'788 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 14 • 03-4117-005-9010 3131 DOUGLAS RD CORAL GABLES CRAFTS SEC PB 10 40 ALL OF BLKS 32 & 42 INCL ALLEYS LYG THEREIN & ALL SAN SEBASTIAN CT LYG BTWN BLKS 32 & 42 PER ORD 1567 & 1568 66 LOT SIZE 139035 SQ FT SCOTT M BROWN TR 3820 STATE ST SANTA BARBARA CA 93105 03-4117-005-9080 TODD WERNSTROM &W NANETTE 14 SAN SEBASTIAN AVE 14 SAN SEBASTIAN AVE 17 54 41 CORAL GABLES FL 33134-.6819 CORAL GABLES CRAFTS SEC PB 10-40 LOT 10 & W1/2 LOT 11 BLK 43 LOT SIZE IRREGULAR 03-4117-005-9090 10 SAN SEBASTIAN AVE CORAL GABLES CRAFTS SEC LOT 10-40 LOT 12 & El/2 LOT 11 BLK 43 LOT SIZE 60.000 X 104 03-4117-005-9390 3200 COCONUT GROVE DR CORAL GABLES CRAFTS SEC PB 10-40 LOT D & LOT 13 BLK 43 LOT SIZE 9146 SQ FT JUAN J MENDEZ &W ELSA 10 SAN SEBASTIAN AVE CORAL GABLES FL 33134-6819 JORGE CORREA 3200 COCONUT GROVE DR CORAL GABLES FL 33134-6827 11'788 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE DECISIONS, INC. 15 :?: � ` ice_ [� �� 3• f 'i ABILIO RAMOS SILVIA M CORZO 3640-42 SW 27 ST KIWI FL 33133 ANNIE MAY XNAPPE 923 SPRINGDALE RD N E ATLANTA GA 30306 AUDRE BURT 2714 SW 36 AVE MIAMI FL 33133-2724 CAMILO E LOPEZ 3625-27 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133 CHARLES F BERNOT JR &W CAROL M 3731 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7236 i DEBORAS MARTIN 3628 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133 DIEGO FENANDEZ & RAIMUNDO FERNANDEZ 3721 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33134-7234 EFREN S07A &W MIRTA HERMES.SOZA &W YOLANDA 3604 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2706 ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ &W ESTHER 3635 SW 24 TERR MIAMI FL 33145 FERNANDO T GARCIA-CSANON TRUST 1544 TARAGONA DR CORAL GABLES FL 33134-2300 ALICE AZAR & GLORIA JEAN AZAR ALMANY INVESTORS LTD 6820 W.FLAGI-ER ST #309 2700 SW 23 TEAR MIAMI FL 33144-2873 MIAMI FL 33145-3300 AR)W0O SANDE &W LOURDES G 3666 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2011 BARBARA ANN BRYANT 9220.SW 12 ST MIAMI FL 33174-3108 CAROL S.THOMPSON 3721 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7236 CITY OF MIAMI P O BOX 330708 COCONUT GROVE STAT MIAMI FL' 33233 DELIA FREIRE 10925 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33165-2301 EDUARDO & BENIGNO NAVARRO & HILA S NAVARRO 3660 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2011 ELIEZER SOLER &W DIGNA 3720-22 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7237 EUGENIO MOLINET &W MARIA 3615 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2705 . FIDEL CAMPS &W ILDELISA 2377 SW 15 ST MIAMI FL 33145-1205 Exhibit "C" ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ &W ANGELA 3439 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2037 BONZO ENTERPRISE INC 2658 SW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33133-2726 CAROLYN A BALL 3627 SW 27 ST MIAMI FLA 33133-2711 CITY OF MIAMI-DEFT OF P&D ASSET MANAGEMENT DIVISION 444 SW 2 AVE STE #325 MIAMI FL 33130-1910 DIANA M LOPEZ 6300 MAYNADA CORAL GABLES FL 33146 EDYTEE P BERNOT 3733 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7236 EMIGDIO LLE3 MA &W TIMM 3666 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2706 EVILIO CAPOTE SR &W RAQUEL EVILIO CAPOTE JR &W BLANCA 3651-53 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2705 FIRC DOUGLAS LTD 2299 DOUGLAS RD 4TH PL MIAMI FL 33145-3000 V V MANUEL RODRIGUEZ MARCO A SkINZ iW ANA M MARIA LL8R8NA PINO L 3616 SW 26 TERR 2720-22 SW 37 AVE EMIGDIO LLMUM iW TllOTEA MIAMI FL 33133-2706 MIAMI FL 33133-2728 3664 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133-2706 MARIANO E FERNANDEZ GW OLGA MARINA B TUNERMANN MICVEL CA14AC80 iW J03SFA 1925 SW 97 AVE 3672 SW 27 ST UNIT 2. 3644 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33165-7602 MIAMI FL 33133-2712 MIAMI FL 33133-2706 NESTOR FERNANDEZ NICOLA LENOCI-TORITTO iW MARIA NOEL A.ROJAS CW 1?7NlAhT.T.Y C i 3983 KUMQUAT AVE PO BOX 96 0693 JUANA E CARAMFS MIAMI FL 33133-5611 MIAMI FLA 33296 3630 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33173 ORLANDO ROCHE LW EUGENIA OSCAR CAMACHO LW NATALIA PEDRO MEDINA iW MARIA L 3661 SW 26 TERR 3646 SW 26 TERR 3611-15 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2705 MIAMI FL 33133-2706 MIAMI PL 33133-2711 R STUBBS.CW FRANCES w RAUL L VIVIAN GARCIA RITA M MARTINEZ 7520 RED RD STE-D 46 JACKSON ST 3674 SW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33014-4315 YONKERS NY 10701 MIAMI FL 33133 ROLANDO ATESIANO CW ADDY ROSA E PUELLO ROY N REBELIA 3635-37 SW 27 ST 649 NAVARRE AVE _ 3673 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33145 CORAL GABLES PL 33134-3760 MIAMI FL 33133-2705 SAUL J LAGUILLO LW REINA A SCOTT M BROWN TR SILVIA GARCIA 2700 SW 36 AVE 3820 STAIR ST 3655 SW 26.TERR MIAMI FLA 33133-2724 SARTA BARBARA CA 93105 MIAMI FLA 33133-2705 SOL MANDEL TAIMY FIALLO TODD WERNSTROF! iW NAASSiTB 1800 NE 114 ST APT 2305 3631 SW 26 TERR - 14 3AN SSBA.4TLAN AVB NORTH MIAMI FL 33181-3414 MIAMI FL 33133 CORAL GABLES FL 33134-6819 VILMA FONSECA WALTER V MORROW WILBUR PEARSON LW BARBARA 3671-73 SW 27 ST 108 SARTO AVE 6880 SW 98 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2711 CORAL GABLES FL 33134-7248 MIAMI FL 33156-3045 YOLANDA G.BUENO Almany Investors Ltd. 2724 SW 36 AVE 3711 SW 27 St. MIAMI FL 33133-2724 Miami , FL 33134 11788 FOUAD SC.ANDAR iw SILV'IA FREDERICR BAIM iW BETTYB 2710 DOUGLAS RD FREDERICK BALL iW LULA MAY 3676 SW 27 ST 3617 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33133 MIAMI FLA 33133-2712 MIAMI FLA 33133-2711 GEORGE L GUEVARA GREGORIO ESTE= GUDR GUDRUN 8 ZSLRAI PO BOX 330412 3626 SW 26 ST 3616 SW 26 STMIAM COCONUT GROVE FL 33233 MIAMI FL 33133-2011 FL 33133-2011 BAROLD E MILLER iW MARGARET HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INC 8100 SW 10 TERR BEALTECARE REALTY TRUST INC %CORAL GABLES MEDICAL PLAZA ATTN: MR GERRY A NECUZE MIAMI FL 33144-4256 2601 SW 37 AVE #805 3100 DOUGLAS RD MIAMI FL 33133-2751 CORAL GABLES FL 33134 BILDELISA LASTRE nELIZA POLANCO IVAN A SUAREZ iW AGNES i 351 FLAGAMI BLVD 3650-52 SW 27 ST MELVIN J i NORMA I SUAREZ MIAMI FL 33144 MIAMI FL 33133 3670 SW 27 ST UNIT 1 MIAMI FL 33133-2712 JAMIRA CORP JEFFREY A HARRISON *�?? JESUS GONZALEZ iW CARMEN 2750 DOUGLAS RD 1600 RID RD 1751 SW 14 ST MIAMI FL 33134 MIAMI FL 33138 MIAMI FL 33145 JESUS REGUEIRA iW REMEDIOS JOMOR MANAGEMENT INC JORGE CORREA 3712 SW 27 ST 247 ALMERIA AVE 3200 COCONUT GROVE DR MIAMI FL 33134-7237 CORAL GABLES FL 33134-5903 CORAL GABLES FL 33134-6827 JORGE PINEIRO SW CARMEN i JORGE A CARDOZA iW GREGORIA JOSE SAMPEDRO iW HAYDEE ILEANA PINEIRO 2614 SW 36 AVE 3636 SW 26 TERR 11877 SW 47 ST MIAMI FL 33133-2722 MIAMI FLA 33133-2706 MIAMI FL 33175-4901 JOYCE CRADROFF JUAN ALVAREZ LW CONCEPCION JUAN J MENDEZ iW ELSA 1931 NE 197 TERR 5931 SW 9 TERR - 10 SAN SEBASTIAN AVE MIAMI FL 33179 MIAMI FL 33144-5016 CORAL GAHi83 FL 33134-6819 JULIO A DEISOL iW AMANDA B R M PROPERTY INVESTMENT INC LEANDRO GONZALEZ iW'ODALYS 3741 SW 27 ST 1502 CORUNA AVE' 3608-10 SW 27 ST MIAMI FL 33134-7236 CORAL GABLES PL 33156-6318 MIAMI FL 33133-2712 LIDIA LEON MANUEL MUNIZ iW ESTRELLA MANUE'L D TEJEDA iw FRANCISCA i 3631 SW 27 ST 1305 CASTILE AVE 3741 SW 26 TERR MIAMI FL 33133 CORAL GABLES FL 33134-4745 MIAMI FL 33134-7234 11788 LAW OFFICES SHUBIN&BASS P R 0 F.E S S 1 0 N A L A S S 0 C 1 A T 1 0 N VIA HAND DELIVERY March 18, 1999 Alex Villarello,Esq. City Attorney City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Change of Zoning and Proposed Amendment of City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan For Properties Located at Approximately 3674, 3680, 3690 S.W. 26th Terrace and 3675 S.W. 27ch Street/Zoning Case No. 1998- 0151/Planning Case No. 98-036 Dear Alex: The purpose of this letter is to advise you that the above - referenced application cannot proceed as scheduled on March 23, 1999, due to fact that the underlying SD-19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT designation which is being sought through this application is void for the reasons set forth below. Because the underlying zoning district suffers from multiple fatal deficiencies, it is in the best interest of the City of Miami to remove the matter from its agenda or, alternatively, to deny the item outright.. I. Special Zoning Districts Under The City of Miami Zoning ordinance. The City of Miami created a series of special zoning districts through City Code § 600 et seq ("SD" or "Special Districts"). In accordance with Code § 600.4.1, each special zoning district is required to specifically describe the following: [T]he nature of the special and substantial public interest involved and the objectives to be promoted by special regulations and/or procedures within the district as a whole, or within subareas of the district, if division into such subareas is reasonably necessary for achievement of regulatory purposes. MIAMI TAMPA 46 S.W.1 st Street, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130 707 Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602 Ph: 305.381.6060 Frc 305.381.9457 Ph: 813.223.4785 F)c 813.223.4787 11788 ZONING CODE § 6 0 0.4 . 1 The SD-19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT is codified at Section 619 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance. For your convenience, it is reproduced below: Sec. 619 SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District. Sec. 619.1 Intent. Specific areas within the city, including the Civic Center .area; on the south side of US-1, west of 17th Avenue, the area south of Coral Way on the east side of Douglas Road (37th Avenue), and the area bounded by N.E. 4th. Avenue (extended) and Biscayne Boulevard between N.E. 18th and N.E. 20th Streets have been appropriately zoned with a specific sector number. (Ord. No. 10863, §1, 3-28-91). Sec. 619.2 Effect of SD-1.9 district designation. The effect of these SD-19 districts shall be to modify regulations within portions of other zoning districts included within. the SD boundaries to designate properties or areas of the city with a specific floor area ratio (F.A.R.). (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91). When measured against the requirement of § 600.4.1, as identified above, it is self-evident that the SD-19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT fails to set forth with specificity the public interest involved, the objectives to be promoted, or the procedures to be followed when seeking to utilize the district. In short, it is apparent that the SD-i9 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT fails to comply with the literal requirements for all special districts under Zoning Code § 600.4.1.1 As such, the SD- 19 district is void. O'Connor v. Dade County, 410 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); City of Miami Beach v. State of Florida 'Ex Rel. Consolo, 279 So.2d 76, 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)(holding that a municipality cannot exercise the authority to change zoning granted by one provision of the. zoning code, and yet completely ignore the obligatory requirements of the same ordinance as they pertain to the method and procedure .for making such changes)(citations omitted); accord, Paxson v. City of North Bay 1 Compare generally, §§ 601.1 - 617.1, § 620.1, § 621.1. 2 SHUBIN & BASS, P.A. 11788 Village, Slip Op. (Fla. 11th Cir. App. Diva, opinion filed March 12, 1999)(municipality must follow the requirements of its own code when passing ordinances), citing Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 183 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1966); City of Jacksonville v. Sohn, 616 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) ; Little River Investments Inc. v. Fowler, 266 So.2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) ; see also, Weinberg v. City of Miami, 1 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 431 (11th Judicial Circuit, Appellate. Division, Opinion filed - June 11, 1993). Equally void`is any zoning action taken pursuant to the SD = 19 District. Id. II. The SD-19 District Is Unconstitutional and Void For Its Lack Of Specific Standards. It is well settled that a valid zoning ordinance requires specifically discernible standards to guide the zoning authority in the discharge of its zoning powers. City of Coral Gables v. Deschamps, 242 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). This requirement was succinctly stated by the Third District Court of Appeal in the case of City of Miami v. Save Brickell Ave. , 426 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) where the Court held invalid a prior City of Miami Zoning Ordinance for its similar failure to contain objective standards. As such, the SD-19 District would not be the first City of Miami Zoning Code section to fail a constitutional challenge.. In Save Brickell, the Court declared the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance to be unconstitutional, as follows: In other words, if definite standards are not included in' the ordinance, it must be deemed unconstitutional as an invalid delegation of legislative power to an administrative board. . Id. at .1104. In reaching its holding in Save Brickell, the Court expressly relied upon the following language from the Supreme Court of. Florida in the case of North Bay Village v. Blackwell, 88 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1956): An ordinance, whereby the City Council delegates to itself the arbitrary and unfettered authority how to decide where and how a particular structure shall be built or where located without at the same time setting. up reasonable standards which would be applicable alike to all property owners similarly 3 SHUBIN & BASS, P.A. 11788 conditioned, cannot be permitted to stand as a valid municipal enactment. Id. (Citations omitted). Declaring the City of Miami zoning. ordinance under review at that time unconstitutional because of its lack of" specific standards, the Third District Court of Appeal concluded as follows: Certainly, an ordinance which permits a legislative agency to totally disregard listed criteria and to base a decision upon unlisted or no criteria does not meet the standards recited in North Bay Village v. Blackwell. Save Brickell, 426 So.2d. at 1105. Once again, the SD-19 falls short of the proverbial mark when measured against the constitutional requirements identified in the -above -cited authorities. It plainly fails to include any. standards whatsoever to guide or limit the density or intensity of development within the district. cf. Village of Key Biscayne V. Department -of Community Affairs, 696 So.2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). At best, it makes reference to certain "sector" numbers which, based on our inquiry, do not exist. Because the entirety of the SD-19 District suffers from a fatal constitutional deficiency, any zoning enactment pursuant thereto is void ab initio. Id. III. An Overlay District Without Specific Standards Equals Illegal Spot Zoning Spot zoning or spot planning is the name typically used to describe the isolated rezoning of. property to a greater intensity of use than surrounding areas to the benefit of one particular property owner and at the .expense of the uniform surrounding zoning. See, e.g. Bird -Kendall Homeowners Assoc. v. Dade County, 695 So.2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 701 So.2d 867 '(Fla-. 1997) ; Debes v. City of Key West, 690 So.2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). As identified by one scholar, an overlay district or floating zone such as the SD-19 special district creates ripe possibilities for impermissible spot zoning where such districts are not expressly mapped and guided by discernible standards. That is because, without such limitations, a floating zone or overlay district can be anchored anywhere by the unfettered discretion of the zoning authority. This inevitably leads to impermissible spot zoning. See, e.g. Michael J. Meshenberg, THE ADMINISTRATION OF FLEXIBLE ZONING TECHNIQUES, Report No. 318, Planning 4 SHUBIN & BASS, P.A. 11788 • Advisory Service, page 32; accord, Mandelker, LAND USE LAW, 4 h Ed: § 6.63 (1997) .; Anderson, THE AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING, § 11. 07, 4TH Ed. (1996) ; Yokely, ZONING PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 5-7; Williams, AMERICAN LAND PLANNING LAW, § 28 et seq. (1988) . On the facts presented, it is clear that unfettered discretion is reposed in the Commission to grant or deny any Floor Area Ratio it deems fit to any applicant who applies for the SD-19 District. Where, as here, it is urged that such discretion be exercised to grant a zoning applicant additional F.A.R., the result is impermissible spot zoning which must be denied. In fact, it is impossible to determine what limits, if any, are imposed on a. request for increased Floor Area Ratio with'the SD-19 District. It is respectfully submitted that the best action for the City to take is to deny the above -referenced applications or to remove them from the zoning agenda. As always, we thank you in advance for your consideration of this correspondence. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John K. Shubin, Esq. For the firm. CC: City Clerk Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esq. Joel Maxwell, Esq. 5 SHUBIN & BASS, P.A. MALLEY v. CLAY COUNTY''ZONING COMMISSION Fla. 555 Cite as, Fla., 225 So.2d 555 I. Shipping @=27 Where transaction out of which note arose involved written agreements indicat- ing that vessel was sold "as is, where is", any oral representation or warranties as to performance capabilities of vessel were ex- cluded. 2. Appeal and Error «173(2) Where no issue was raised in trial court as to failure of consideration nor was specific affirmative defense pleaded, such issue was not properly raised on appeal. Shorenstein & Lewis and Richard. C. Lewis, Miami Beach, for appellant.. Shutts & Bowen and Robert C. Som- merville,Miami, for appellee. Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL, and BARKDULL, JJ• PER CURIAM. Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse summary judg- ment in an action to collect on a promissory note. He urges as points on appeal a breach of oral warranties and a failure of consideration for the execution of the promissory note. We find no error in the judgment here under -review. [1,2] The four written agreements in- volved in the transaction out of which the promissory note arose, indicate that a vessel was sold "as is, where is", which clearly excluded any, oral representation or warran- ties as to the performance capabilities of the vessel. Yanish v. Fernandez, 156 Colo. 225, 397 P.2d 881; Findley v. Downing Motors, Inc., 79 Ga.App. 682, 54 S.E.2d 716 ; Holbrook v. Capital Automobile Com- pany, III Ga.App. 601, 142 S.E.2d 288. No proper issue was raised as to the failure of consideration; no specific affirmative defense was pleaded and, without such, this matter is not properly raised as a point on appeal. See: Biro v. Geiser, F1a.1967, 199 So.2d 461 ; Light v. King, F1a.App.1965, 179 So.2d 398; Accord Jones v. Life In- surance Company of Florida, Fla.App.1968, .215 So.2d 889. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final summary judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. 1 DUUMUR SrS Clarence H. MALLEY and Essie S. Malley, his wife, Appellants, . V. CLAY COUNTY ZONING COMMIS- SION, Appellee. No. J-495. District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District. Aug. 5, 1969. Rehearing nenied Sept. 3, 1969. Appeal from judgment of the Circuit Court, Clay County, Frank H. Elmore, J., granting injunction restraining defendant landowners from keeping or maintaining livestock on their land contrary to provi- sions of zoning ordinance. The District Court of Appeal, Wigginton, J., held that where 'defendant landowners appeared at hearing to consider zoning ordinance and did not claim to have been prejudiced in any manner because of fact that notice of hear- ing published by zoning commission lacked one day of complying with notice require- ments, landowners waived defective notice of hearing and were estopped to urge same as ground for attacking validity of ordi- nance. Af firmed. a k, 556 Fla. i. Zoning C.a24 225 SOUTHERN -REPORTER, 2d SERIES While compliance with statutory notice of hearing is ordinarily mandatory and jurisdictional to enactment of valid zoning ordinance, contesting landowner may waive right or be estopped to assert defect in notice if he appeared at hearing and availed himself of opportunity of fully and ade- quately presenting his objection. 2. Zoning 0-24 Where defendant landowners appeared at hearing to consider zoning ordinance and did not claim to have been prejudiced in any manner because of fact that notice of hearing published by zoning commission lacked one day of complying with notice requirements, landowners waived defective notice of hearing and were estopped to urge same as ground for attacking validity of or- dinance. Howell & Deas, Jacksonville, for appel- lants. Scruby & Yonge, Orange Park, for ap- pellee. WIGGINTON, Judge. Defendant landowners have appealed a summary final judgment granting an in- junction permanently restraining them from keeping or maintaining livestock on their land contrary to the provisions of a zoning ordinance recently enacted by plaintiff zoning commission. They contend that the ordinance is void because proper notice had not been published of the time and place of the hearing at which it was adopted. The comprehensive zoning ordinance pur- suant to which defendants' land was re- zoned requires that at least 15 days notice be given of the time and place of the hear- ing at which a zoning ordinance will be con - I. 96 A.L.R.2d 461 et seq., $ 5. 2. City of Hollywood v. Petersen, (F1a.App. 1965) 178 So.2d 919 ; City of Hollywood v. Rig, (F1a.1951) 52 So.2d 135. sidered. Although the notice of the hearing published by plaintiff commission lacked one day of complying with the requirements of the governing law, defendants appeared at the hearing and expressed their objec- tion to the proposed ordinance. In the judgment appealed the trial court found that even though .proper notice of the hearing at which the ordinance was adopted had not been given, nevertheless defendants' appearance at the hearing con- stituted a waiver of the insufficiency of notice and they were estopped to challenge the validity of the ordinance on this ground. The weight of authority in the United States subscribes to the view that legal re- quirements calling for notice in a particular manner and form preliminary to the adop- tion or amendment of a zoning law are generally construed as mandatory and juris- dictional, and measures passed in contra- vention thereof are invalid.l Florida has adopted the majority view. It has been held in this state that in the promulgation of zoning regulations there must be strict adherence to the require- ments of. notice and hearing preliminary to the adoption of such regulations2 In re- viewing a conviction of one charged with the violation of a zoning ordinance which was -adopted without complying with the notice requirements of F.S. Section 176.05, F.S.A., our Supreme Court said: " * * * The specific grant of zoning power is conditioned by the .provision for notice and public hearing. Since the City Commission did not comply with the notice and public hearing provisions, the ordinance under which the petitioner was arrested and convicted was invalid. The judgment of affirmance in the Circuit Court should be, and hereby is, quash- e&"3 Having established that compliance with notice and hearing requirements of a 3. Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, (Fla. 1966) 183 So.2d 193, 195. _ 11'788 1 SILVER BLUE LAKE APTS. v. SILVER BLUE LASE H. 0. ASS'N Fla. 557 Cite as, Fla., 225 So.2d 557 zoning law is mandatory and jurisdictional, commission's failure to strictly comply with we move next to the question of whether a the notice requirements of the law. Under person may, by his affirmative action, the circumstances we are of the view that waive an insufficient notice of hearing appellants waived the defective notice of given preliminarily to the adoption of a hearing and are now estopped to urge this zoning ordinance, and thereby become as a ground for attacking the validity of the equitably estopped from asserting such de- ordinance. The judgment appealed is ac- fect as a ground for challenging the validity cordingly affirmed. of the ordinance. The general rule is stated by the author of Corpus Juris Secundum to be: "Waiver; Effect of Actual Notice. Where adequate notice is a jurisdic- tional, and not merely a procedural, mat- ter, persons who appear at the hearing and fail to object are not estopped to ob- ject later. * * * " 4 Conversely, it would seem to follow that a person who appears at the hearing and fully registers his objection may be estopped to later object on the ground of defective notice of hearing. [1] Although there is authority to the contrary, the majority of jurisdictions in this country have adopted what we con- sider to be the sounder view that while compliance with statutory notice of hearing is ordinarily mandatory and jurisdictional to the enactment of a valid zoning ordi- nance, a contesting landowner may waive the right or be estopped to assert a defect in the notice so as to invalidate the ordi- nance if he appeared at the hearing and availed himself of the opportunity of fully and adequately presenting his objection 5 [2] Defendants in the case sub judice appeared in person at the hearing when the zoning. ordinance under attack was con- sidered and adopted. They do not contend that the notice was so lacking in compliance with the requirements of law that they did not have sufficient time or opportunity to fully prepare and present their objections at the hearing which they attended. Neither do they contend that they were preju- diced in any manner because of the zoning CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting Chief Judge, and SPECTOR, J., concur. w p S EEY NUNIEN SYSTEM r SILVER BLUE LAKE APARTMENTS, INC., a Florida corporation, John Leisen- ring, Harold M. Diamond and Bernard Sandei, Appellants, V. SILVER BLUE LAKE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a corporation not for profit existing under the laws of the State of Florida, William M. DeLisa and Harris J. Buchbinder, Appellees. No. 68-1 102. District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District. July 29, 1969. Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1969. Owners of land underlying a man- made lake sought to enjoin an allegedly unreasonable use of surface Hof lake by tenants of an apartment complex bordering lake. The Circuit Court for, Dade County, Francis X. Knuck, J., granted relief, and defendant appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that determination that only owners of land underlying man made lake could use surface waters of lake was a reasonable classification which treated all owners equally, so that further determina- tion that corporate owner of apartment 4. 101' C.J.S. Zoning § 302, p. 1084. 5. 96 A.L.R.2d 476-479, §§ 11, 12. - 11'788 1082 Fla. 363 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976), to appellant's insurance contract did not violate Article I, Section 10, Florida Constitution, is reversed. That part of the judgment finding that the uninsured motor- ist carrier is entitled to credit on the unin- sured motorist coverage for the liability insurance coverage of the tort-feasor that has been tendered to the insured is af- firmed. This cause is remanded for pro- ceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein. It is so ordered. ENGLAND, C. J., and BOYD, OVER - TON, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., concurs in result only. DNUMBERSYSTEM Robert F. BRYAR and Marilyn E. Bryar, his wife, guardians of the person and property of Robin Gail Hoekstra, incom- petent, Petitioners, V. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSUR- ANCE COMPANY, Respondent. No. 52769. Supreme Court of Florida. Sept. 7, 1978. Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Second District. Douglas J. Loeffler, of Fox, George, Loeffler & Downey, Clearwater, for peti- tioners. James C. Hadaway, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, St. Pe- tersburg, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. We dispense with the filing of briefs on the merits and oral argument and hereby quash the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, 349 So.2d 1221, and remand the cause to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed by this Court today in Dewberry v. Auto -Owners Insurance Co., 363 So.2d 1077 (F1a.1978), Case No. 52,461, opinion filed September 7, 1978. It is so ordered. ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. 0KEY NUMBERSYSTEM SKAGGS—ALBERTSON'S, Petitioner, V. ABC LIQUORS, INC., and Liquor World, Inc., Respondents. No. 52560. Supreme Court of Florida. Sept. 7, 1978. Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1978. Appeal was taken from order of the Circuit Court, Orange County, Frederick H788 SKAGGS—ALBERTSON'S v. ABC LIQUORS, INC. Fla. 1083 Cite as, Fla., 363 So.2d 1082 Pfeiffer, J., which reversed decision of 4. Zoning e-618 board of county commissioners rejecting es- Board of county commissioners acted in tablishment of new liquor store on the accordance with essential requirements of ground that it was within 5,000 feet of an law in rejecting establishment of new liquor existing liquor store. The District Court of store on ground that it was within 5,000 Appeal, Dauksch, J., 349 So.2d 657, re- feet of an existing liquor store and, thus, versed, and certiorari was sought. The Su- Circuit Court transcended scope of its cer- preme Court, Sundberg, J., held that: (1) tiorari review by substituting its judgment existing liquor store had standing to object for that of local zoning authority. West's to establishment of new liquor store, and (2) F.S.A. § 561.01 et seq., 565.04. board of county commissioners acted in ac- cordance with law in rejected establishment 5. Zoning 8-605 of liquor store and, therefore, Circuit Court Circuit court is not empowered to dis- transcended scope.of its certiorari review by approve findings of the board of county substituting its judgment for that of local commissioners unless record is devoid of zoning authority. substantial competent evidence to support Writ of certiorari discharged. board's decision interpreting zoning ordi- nance. England, C. J., and Overton, J., dissent- ed. 1. Nuisance <�-50(1) Zoning 0—764 The "special damage" standing rule still has vitality in both nuisance actions and actions seeking to enforce a valid zon- ing ordinance, albeit that rule has acquired a more liberal application. 2. Zoning cz- 764 Although loss of business from poten- tial competitor ordinarily cannot provide existing proprietor with requisite standing to challenge interpretation of zoning ordi- nance, proprietor of alcoholic beverage store has standing to object when competi- tor violates a valid and existing law regu- lating his business inasmuch as he has suf- fered some special damage. 3. Zoning c;- 571 Where there was no challenge to validi- ty of zoning ordinance itself either on sub- stantive or procedural grounds, parties chal- lenging interpretation of valid zoning ordi- nance had to prove special damages in order to be "aggrieved" persons with requisite standing to bring action. Sp.Acts 1963, c. 63-1716, § 15. James A. Urban of Urban, Peirsol, Wil- liamson & Davis, and James E. Slater of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for pe- titioner. J. Sam Owens, Jr. of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Simonet, and William L. Eagan of Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, Orlando, for respondents. SUNDBERG, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 349 So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), which announced a rule of law relat- ing to standing required to contest zoning decisions that conflicts with a rule previous- ly announced in Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (F1a.1972). We have jurisdic- tion pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Petitioner, .Skaggs-Albertson's, owns a grocery and liquor store which is located in the same complex. However, petitioner created the liquor store to have its own entrance with no access from the liquor to the main grocery store pursuant to Section 565.04, Florida Statutes (1975), which re- 1084 Fla. 363 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES quires that package stores be devoted ex- clusively to the sale of alcoholic beverages and that they have no openings to other buildings or rooms. The respondents own competing liquor stores with respondent ABC's store being within close proximity to petitioner's business. Petitioner applied to the Division of Bev- erages of the Department of Business Reg- ulation for a license to sell alcoholic bever- ages as mandated by Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. As part of its application for the license, petitioner was required tosubmit a permit from the zoning director of Orange County reflecting that the location meets the zoning requirements of Orange County. The zoning director refused to issue the required permit, certifying that to do so would violate a zoning resolution of Orange County prohibiting the construction of a package store which is located within 5,000 feet of an existing liquor store. That sec- tion of the Orange County zoning resolution explaining the method to be employed in measuring the distance states: The distance provided in this resolution shall be measured by following the short- est route of ordinary pedestrian travel along the public thoroughfare from the proposed main entrance of a vendor who proposes to operate his place of business and is licensed under Ch. 561, Florida Statutes, to the main entrance of any other vendor who was operating such a business. Subsection 4, Article XXV, Section 15, Zon- ing Resolution of Orange County. As demonstrated by the attached illustra- tion, the zoning director interpreted this section in such a way that the main en- trance of petitioner's liquor store was deter- mined to be less than 5,000 feet from the main entrance of respondent ABC's store. Conversely, the illustration shows that peti- tioner's proposed method of measurement (identified as trial court's route) would satisfy the zoning resolution. [See following illustration.] 11788 RELATIONSHIP OF MEASUREMENTS BY ZONING DIRECTOR AND TRIAL COURT ZONING DIRECTOR'S ROUTE (less than 5000')MI7=1 I I I i I I rl I I I I I I I J_ TRIAL COURTI.S ' •'111Y7_J'/_I%ll�lJ_Jl�TI!lilJjll� >' �d 10 (D bro cD H ft3 (D Oa H H O C7 Fl- N (D rt H FJ• m n n N p- O 0 O rt (D d N rt H 0 rt BC rop" rty 3 1086 Fla. 363 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES Petitioner appealed the determination of the zoning director to the Board of Zoning Adjustment of Orange County which re- versed the decision of the zoning director. Respondents then appealed this decision to the Board of County Commissioners pursu- ant to Section 15 of Chapter 63-1716, Spe- cial Acts, Laws of Florida, which provides: Any person aggrieved by any decision of the . . . board of zoning adjust- ment may file a notice of appeal to the Board of County Commissioners . . . The Board of County Commissioners re- versed the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Subsequent to the decision of the Board of County Commissioners, peti- tioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in circuit court. Respondents, ABC Li- quors, Inc. and Liquor World, Inc., inter- vened. The circuit court granted the writ of certiorari, reversed the decision of the Board of County Commissioners, and or- dered the zoning director to issue petition- er's Certificate of Zoning Approval. On the face of its order, the circuit court found that the intervenors had standing to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjust- ment to the Board of County Commission- ers and that the proper method of measure- ment was that suggested by petitioner. Respondents then appealed to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District. Petition- er cross -assigned as error the finding of the circuit court that respondents had standing to appeal the decision of the Board of Zon- ing Adjustment to the Board of County Commissioners. The district court reversed the circuit court, ruling adversely to peti- tioner on all points. Petitioner now renews its assertions that (1) . respondents did not have standing to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment to the Board of County Com- missioners or to appeal the decision of the circuit court to the District Court of Ap- peal, Fourth District, and (2) the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, erred in reversing the decision of the circuit court with regard to the interpretation of the zoning ordinance at issue. For the reasons that follow, we find that respondents were "aggrieved" persons within the meaning of Section 15, Chapter 63-1716, Special Acts, Laws of Florida, and that the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, was correct in reversing the decision of the circuit court with respect to the proper interpretation to be placed on the zoning ordinance. We initiate our discussion of standing to contest zoning decisions by noting that this area of the law appears to be characterized by instability. It will be our endeavor to stabilize this issue by attempting to resolve the apparent inconsistencies created by the various appellate decisions which have en- tertained the subject. In Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So.2d 132 (F1a.1958), this Court enunciated the princi- ple that one seeking redress, either preven- tive or corrective, against an alleged viola- tion of a municipal zoning ordinance must allege and prove special damages peculiar to himself differing in kind, as distin- guished from differing in degree, from damages suffered by the community as a whole. The plaintiff owned property across the street from the property on which de- fendant Novotny was building a motel. Plaintiff alleged that certain projections of the building would violate the setback re- quirements of the city's zoning ordinance. In affirming the circuit court's dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of lack of standing, this Court announced the rule that: We have on a number of occasions held that where municipal officials threaten or commit a violation of municipal ordi- nances which produces an injury to a particular citizen which is different in kind from the injury suffered by the peo- ple_ of the community as a whole then such injured individual is entitled to in- junctive relief in the absence of an ade- quate legal remedy. With equal consist- ency, however, we have likewise held that in order to sustain a complaint for relief against threatened or consummated mu- nicipal action such as the creation of a nuisance or the blocking of a street the injury suffered by the complaining indi- vidual must be special and peculiar 0 1 • 1 1 0 SKAGGS—ALBERTSON'S v. ABC, LIQUORS, INC. Fla. 1087 Cite as, Fla., 363 So.2d 1082 himself and not merely different in de- statute or authority creating the zoning gree from that suffered by the, remainder power." of the community. In other words, the 261 So.2d at 834. complaining citizen along with all other After noting that a division had developed people in the community might suffer some injury and it may be that the extent among the district courts on the issue of of the injury suffered by the one com- standing to sue in zoning matters following plaining is greater in degree than that the Boucher decision, the Renard Court suffered by many other citizens. Never- answered the certified question as follows: theless, the complaining citizen is without The question certified to this Court, set redress in equity unless he can allege and out supra, has three parts. Part (1) deals prove special damages peculiar to himself with standinto enforce a valid zoning and differing in kind rather than in de- ordinance. The Boucher rule requiring gree from the damages suffered by the special damages still covers this type of people as a whole. suit. However, in the twenty years since 102 So.2d at 134 (citations omitted). the Boucher decision, changed conditions, Recognizing that the aforementioned rule including increased population growth had been applicable to abatement of nuis- and density, require a more lenient appli- ances, this Court found that it was equally cation of that rule. The facts of the apposite to actions seeking to remedy or Boucher case, if presented today, would prevent breaches of municipal zoning ordi- probably be sufficient to show special nances. damage. Fourteen years later we had the opportu- nity to revisit this area in Renard v. Dade Part (2) of the question certified to this County, supra. In that case, petitioner and Court deals with standing to attack a respondents owned adjoining parcels. Re- validly enacted zoning ordinance as being spondents applied for a rezoning of their an unreasonable exercise of legislative parcel to multifamily residence, which was power. As indicated above, persons hav- ultimately granted. Petitioner objected ing a legally recognizable interest, which during the stages of administrative appeal. is adversely affected by the proposed zon- Following adverse determinations, petition- ing action, have standing to sue. er sought review. by certiorari in the circuit court which ruled against petitioner, find- _Part (3) of the question certified deals ing that he had no standing to prosecute with standing to attack a zoning ordi- the matter in that he had alleged no special nance which is void because not properjy interest. On appeal, the District Court of e_nactedas where required notice was not Appeal, Third District, held that petitioner given. Any affected resident, citizen or had sufficient standing to institute the suit, property owner of the governmental unit but since the rezoning question was "fairly in question has standing to challenge such debatable," the trial court's decision should an ordinance. have been approved. Nevertheless, the court found the question to be of sufficient 261 So.2d at 837-38 (footnotes omitted). public interest to certify it to this Court. It therefore became important to determine Specifically, the certified question con- into which category a particular case fell, cerned: for different rules of standing applied de - "The standing necessary for a plaintiff to pending on whether the action sought to (1) enforce a valid zoning ordinance; (2) enforce a valid zoning ordinance, whether it attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance attempted to attack a validly enacted zon- as not being fairly debatable and there- ing ordinance as being an unreasonable ex - fore an arbitrary and unreasonable exer- ercise of legislative power, or whether it cise of legislative power; and (3) attack a involved an attack upon a zoning ordinance void ordinance, i. e., one enacted without which was void because not properly enact - proper notice required under the enabling ed. r 3 1088 Fla. 363 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES The reason for these disparate rules was apparently historical. As suggested in Re- nard, the "special damage" rule was an outgrowth of the law of public nuisance. Inasmuch as a public nuisance was an of- fense against the state and, accordingly, was subject to abatement on motion of the proper governmental agency, an individual could not maintain an actio►, for a public nuisance unless he suffered some special damage from the public nuisance. Restate- ment of Torts, Chapter 40, Invasion of In- terests in Private Use of Land, Introducto- ry Note (1939); North Dade Bar Associa- tion v. Dade Commonwealth Title Insurance Co., 143 So.2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Be- cause one of the historical antecedents of zoning was the law of nuisances,t violations of valid zoning ordinances came to be treat- ed as. public nuisances for purposes of deter- mining rules of standing. Thus, the Renard Court stated that "[t]he Boucher rule was not intended to be applied to zoning mat- ters other than suits by individuals for zon- ing violations." 261 So.2d at 835. How- ever, when the zoning ordinance itself was challenged either on substantive or proce- dural grounds, there was no longer the his- torical predicate for invoking the "special damage" rule.2 [1] This Court again had the occasion to enunciate its steadfast support for the "spe- cial damages" rule in United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So.2d 9 (F1a.1974), a case involving a nuisance ac- tion, and found that the rule serves a con- temporary jurisprudential function which undoubtedly accounts for its continued via- bility. Quoting with approval from Askew v. Hold the Bulkhead —Save Our Bays, Inc., 269 So.2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), this Court adopted the following language as its own: "Neither of appellees has alleged or shown that one or the other of them will suffer a special injury or that either has a special interest in the outcome of this action. In order to maintain this kind of 1. 12 U.F1a.L.Rev. 16, 27 (1959); Wis.L.Rev Vol. 1955: 440. 2. Opinions following the "special damages" rule include Banyan Cafeterias, Inc. # 3 v. action, absent a sufficient predicate to a proper class suit (and there is no such predicate here), it is well settled that a plaintiff must allege that his injury would be different in degree and kind from that suffered by the community at large. "If it were otherwise there would be no end to potential litigation against a given defendant, whether he be a public official or otherwise, brought by individuals or residents, all possessed of the same gener- al interest, since none of them would be bound by res judicata as a result of prior suits; and as against public authorities, they may be intolerably hampered in the performance of their duties and have lit- tle time for anything but the intermina- ble litigation. [We again exclude from this rationale a proper `class action.']" 303 So.2d at 12 (citations omitted). It is clear ,then that the "special damage" rule still has vitality in both nuisance actions and actions seeking to enforce a valid zon- ing ordinance, albeit that rule has acquired a more liberal application. The question arises whether the proprie- tor of an existing business has standing to challenge a zoning decision authorizing a competitor to do business solely on the ground that he suffers injury because of loss of business. In Skaggs-Albertson's Properties, Inc. v. Michels Belleair Bluffs Pharmacy, Inc.,, 332 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), the District Court of Appeal, Second District, answered this question in the neg- ative. The appellant, in that case, proposed to construct a combination grocery and drug retail store. After appellant received its building permit but prior to the com- mencement of construction, appellee sought to enjoin construction on the store. The court found, inter alia, that appellee did not have standing and stated: Faith Lutheran Church, 151 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1963); Continental Con-Dev Co. v. Shallberg, 267 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). 11'788 SKAGGS—ALBERTSON'S v. ABC LIQUORS, INC. Fla. 1089 Cite as, Fla., 363 So.2d 1082 The fact that Michels might lose business because of competition from Skaggs' drugstore operation cannot provide the requisite standing. Cord Meyer Develop- ment Co. v. Bell Bay Drugs, Inc., 1967, 20 N.Y.2d 211, 282 N.Y.S.2d 259, 229 N.E.2d 44.3 332 So.2d at 116. In announcing the principle that the pre- vention of competition is not a proper element of zoning, the Michels court echoed a rule recognized by a number of authorities in other jurisdictions. Mott's Realty Corp. v. Town Plan & Zoning Com- mission of Windsor, 152 Conn. 535, 209 A.2d 179 (1965); Farr v. Zoning Board of Ap- peals, 139 Conn. 577, 95 A.2d 792 (1953); Benson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 129 Conn. 280, 284,.27 A.2d 389, 391 (1942); 179 Duncan Ave. Corp. v. Board of Adjustment of Jersey City, 122 N.J.L. 292, 293, 5 A.2d 68 (1939); Lehrer v. Board of Adjustment of City of Newark, 137 N.J.L. 100, 58 A.2d 265 (1948); Town of Clinton v. Standard Oil Co., 193 N.C. 432, 137 S.E. 183 (1927); Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Davis, 200 Va. 316, 106 S.E.2d 152 (1958); Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 86 N.E.2d 920 (1949); Metzenbaum Zoning (2d Ed.), Ch. X—m—(10). In the instant case, the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, appeared to devi- ate from this principle when it explained: We can think of no one more interested in the establishment of a liquor store than another liquor store nearby. The effect to the established liquor store is certainly an economic one; to increase competition is to reduce income, usually. 349 So.2d at 660. The court relied in part on Keating v. State, 173 So.2d 673 (F1a.1965), for this proposition. 3. See also Wyatt v. City of Pensacola, 196 So.2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Fogg v. City of South Miami, 183 So.2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Abdo v. City of Daytonia Beach, 147 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). 4. In Baker v. State, 159 Fla. 286, 31 So.2d 275 (1947), a preemptory writ of mandamus was issued by the circuit judge, ordering the Di- rector of State Beverage Department to revoke a retail liquor package store license issued to Keating involved the revocatior of a liquor license which was issued to the tenant of a building. The revocation order provided that no liquor license could be issued for use at the location of the building for two years. The landlord of the premises sought to alter the revocation order which request was granted by a subsequent Beverage Director. The respondent, a competitor of the landlord, then succeeded in obtaining an order en- joining the Director from modifying the original revocation. Keating v. State, 167 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). Subsequent- ly, petitioner, the incumbent State Bever- age Director, sought certiorari review in this Court contending the respondent had no legal standing to challenge the order of petitioner's predecessor. This Court found that the requisite standing existed and held: We are convinced that we should re- cede from Baker v. State ex rel. Hi -Hat Liquors, Inc., supra, insofar as it holds that a licensee competitor has no stand- ing to maintain an action of the kind here involved merely because as a business competitor the profits or commercial ad- vantages which he might gain in elimina- ting his competition "are too elusive and uncertain to sustain the action." 173 So.2d at 675.4 Considering the case on the merits, the Court decided that because the liquor industry was carefully regulated by the government, a liquor license had come to have the.quality of property. Accordingly, the license could not be revoked without giving the landlord notice and opportunity for a hearing as mandated by due process. Petitioner attempts to detract from the significance of Keating by emphasizing that it was not a zoning case and, therefore; not subject to the particular requirements of Baker on -the ground that his place of business was within 300 feet of a school site in violation of a statute. Hi -Hat, a competitor whose store was outside the prescribed 300-foot zone, brought suit to enforce the zoning ordinance. Finding that Hi-Hat's declared object was to eliminate Baker as a competitor, this Court held that Hi -Hat had no special interest suffi- cient to sustain the suit. • 6E Fla.Cases 362 363 So.2d-24 logo Fla. 363 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES standing which this Court has ruled applica- ble to such cases. Secondly, petitioner sug- gests that the Keating Court expressly stat- ed it was receding from Hi -Hat only insofar as it applied to actions of the type involved in Keating, i. e., a case involving the revoca- tion of a liquor license and not one in which a competitor was seeking enforcement of a valid zoning ordinance. [2] Respondents contend that Keating stands for the principle that the proprietor of an alcoholic beverage store has standing to object when a competitor violates a valid and existing law regulating his business because he has suffered some special dam- age. This is so because that industry is characterized by stringent governmental regulation, and, therefore, the reestablish- ment of a store at an alternate location is made more difficult thereby. We agree. Underlying the decision of this Court in Keating was the notion that a liquor license is a form of property bestowing certain special rights to the liquor licensee different from those rights ordinarily accruing to the licensee of another business. The Keating Court adopted language in House v. Cotton, 52 So.2d 340 (F1a.1951), which stated: "Even though a liquor license may have the character of a mere privilege insofar as governmental regulation of the alco- holic beverage industry is concerned, it must be recognized that in this state, as well as in many other states, due to the limitations respecting the number and lo- cation of liquor establishments and the conditions under which the license is is- sued, a liquor license has come to have the quality of property, with an actual pecuniary value far in excess of the license fees exacted by the state, county, and city." 173 So.2d at 676. Thus, the package store operator who loses his license suffers a special kind of injury. He may not be permitted to relocate in a desired location or, conceivably, may not be able to obtain another license at any other 5. We note that the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Rayan Corporation, Inca v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade Coun- ty, 356 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), a case location. When a competitor opens a shop in his locale, the licensee runs the risk of being forced from his present place of business. He must then attempt to relocate pursuant to all the limitations respecting the number and location of liquor establish- ments. Unlike Skaggs-Albertson's Prop- erties, Inc. v. Michels Belleair Bluffs Pharmacy, Inc., supra, in which appellee sought to prevent the construction of a drug and grocery store, the instant case attempts to proscribe the erection of a package store. While the number and proximity of liquor vendors are stringently regulated, the number of drugstores is not. Consequently, although we adhere to the general rule enunciated in Skaggs-Albert- son's Properties, Inc. v. Michels Belleair Bluffs Pharmacy, Inc., supra, that loss of business from a potential competitor ordi- narily cannot provide the existing proprie- tor with the requisite standing, we find that an alcoholic beverage dealer tends to suffer a special injury when confronted with a nearby competitor because of the regulation applicable to him and his business. [3] In the instant case, the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, correctly found that respondents had the requisite standing but incorrectly applied t e -princi- ples enunciated in Renard That courl-sub- stituted the "le ally recognizable interest" ru e for the "special damages ru e when it stated: Skaggs has raised the question of standing. We find the case of Renard v. Dade County, °261 So.2d 832 (F1a.1972) to be on point: ". . persons having a legally recognizable interest, which is ad- versely affected by the proposed zoning action, have standing to sue." 5 349 So.2d at 660. The instant case questions the interpreta- tion of a valid zoning ordinance. There has been no challenge to the validity of the ordinance itself either on substantive or procedural grounds. Accordingly, respon- dents had to prove special damages in having substantially the same issue as the in- stant cause, concluded similarly to the district court herein. • • WELLER v. ASKEW Cite as, Fla., 363 So.2d 1091 order to be "aggrieved" persons under Section 15, Chapter 63-1716, Special Acts, Fred W Laws of Florida. Pursuant to Keating v. State supra we believe respondents Fla. 1091 WELLER et al., Appellants, V. have made the requisite showing of special Governor Reubin O'D. ASKEW et damage. al., Appellees. [4, 51 Petitioner's second point chal- lenges the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in reversing the circuit court with regard to the interpreta- tion to be placed on the applicable zoning ordinance. We find that the conflicting interpretations urged by petitioner and re- spondents are both reasonable and, conse- quently, find that the Board of County Commissioners acted in accordance with the essential requirements of law in reaching its decision. The circuit court, therefore, transcended the scope of its certiorari re- view by substituting its judgment for that of the local zoning authority. Because zon- ing or rezoning is the function of the appro- priate zoning authority and not the courts 96 the circuit court was not empowered to disapprove the finding of the Board unless the record was devoid of substantial compe- tent evidence to support the Board's deci- sion. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is dis- charged. It is so ordered. ADKINS, BOYD and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. ENGLAND, C. J., and OVERTON, J., dissent. 0w O 3 KEYNUMBERSYSTEM T 6. Hillsborough County v. Twin Lakes Mobile Home Village, 166 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Sarasota County v. Walker, 144 So.2d No. 52085. Supreme Court of Florida. Sept. 21, 1978. Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1978. Four owners of land in the Big Cypress Area brought suit for declaration of their rights under the Big Cypress Conservation Act and injunctive relief. The Circuit Court, Leon County, James E. Joanos, J., denied relief, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Boyd, J., held that: (1) in spite of eventual control of land by federal government, acquisition of land pursuant to Big Cypress Conservation Act was a state project and could be funded by state full faith and credit bonds; (2) donation to fed- eral government of sovereignty lands under the Turner River did not violate State Con- stitution, and (3) absent proof of contract, landowners could not recover damages for state's alleged failure to comply with repre- sentations made by officials of the State Department of Natural Resources about the order of acquisition of land. Affirmed. Adkins, J., dissented. 1. States (8— 119 In spite of eventual control of land by federal government, acquisition of land un- der the Big Cypress Conservation Act was a state project which could be funded by state full faith and credit bonds. West's F.S.A. § 380.055. 2. States c3;- 89 Donation to federal government of sov- ereignty lands under the Turner River pur- suant to the Big Cypress Conservation Act 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); City of Tampa v. Consolidated Box Co., 110 So.2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). h i T 0 1 0 WYATT v. CITY OF PENSACOLA Fla. 777 Cite as, Fla., 196 So.2d 777 Joseph H. WYATT, Clara J. Wyatt, Peter Paul Belser and Dorothy M. Belser, Appellants, V. The CITY 0=- PENSACOLA, a municipal corporation, Appellee. No. 1-133. District Court of _appeal of Florida. First District. March 28, 1967. Zoning case. From a summary final decree entered by the Court of Record for Escambia County, 'XT..C. Blanchard, J., hold- ing that the last sentence of a section of the Zoning Code dealing with dry-cleaning es- tablishments was void and unconstitutional the plaintiffs appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Rawls, C. J., held that where sole basis for sentence delaying effective date of zoning classification until 1970 was economical i. e. to restrict competition in an industry through the use of the police power, the sentence was unconstitutional and should have been stricken from the sec- tion. Reversed. I. Zoning Ca749 Decree in zoning case finding that dry- cleaning establishments shall not be per- mitted in neighborhood commercial districts unless and until city council determines otherwise, was without foundation where council had found that such zone was proper location for operation of dry-cleaning estab- lishments utilizing solvents rated as non- flammable at ordinary temperatures. 2. Zoning 0=644 Legislative finding that neighborhood commercial district was proper location for operation of dry-cleaning establishments utilizing solvents rated as nonflammable at ordinary temperatures was supported by the evidence. I196 So.2d-49Va 3. Municipal Corporations C=111(4) Zoning e-76 Last sentence of zoning section per- mitting dry-cleaning establishments of a particular type but prohibiting such estab- lishments in neighborhood commercial dis- tricts until January 1, 1970 was not founded upon any purpose relating to promotion of health, safety, morals or general welfare and was severable from the section. 4. Zoning 0=33 'Municipality may not establish zoning classification for purpose of restricting com- petition in an industry through the use of the police power. F.S.A. § 176.04. 5. Zoning 0=76 Where sole basis for sentence delaying effective date of zoning section permitting dry-cleaning establishments in neighborhood commercial districts until 1970 was econom- ical i. e. to restrict competition in an indus- try through the use of the police power, the sentence was unconstitutional. F.S.A. § 176.04. William H. Anderson, Pensacola, for ap- pellants. Henry R. Barksdale, Pensacola, for ap- pellee. RAWLS, Chief Judge. Plaintiffs Wyatts and Belsers appeal a summary final decree holding that a por- tion of a section of the City of Pensacola Zoning Code dealing with dry cleaning es- tablishments is void and unconstitutional. Among the uses listed in the Zoning Code for C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Districts is the particular section involved in this cause, viz.: "(13) Launderettes and dry cleaning es- tablishments utilizing solvents rated as nonflammable or as nonflammable at or- dinary temperatures and only moderately I 0 778 Fla. 196 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES flammable at higher temperatures. Dry cleaning establishments shall not be per- mitted in this classification until January 1, 1970." Plaintiffs sought to have the last sentence of the quoted section stricken upon the theories that the purpose of same was not the promotion of health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public, and therefore, was not within the scope of the City's police power, and it deprived the plaintiffs of the right to a legal use of their property without due process. The chancellor struck all parts of the section pertaining to dry cleaning and decreed that the section would be as fol- lows: "(13) Launderettes." By this appeal plaintiffs contend that the chancellor went too far and should have only deleted the un- lawful part, that being the last sentence. After considering the undisputed evidence in this record, we are compelled 'to agree with plaintiffs' contentions, and reverse. At the outset it is significant that the evidence presented to the chancellor did not in any manner relate to public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Pensacola. On the contrary the minutes of the City Council meeting held February 25, 1965, to consider the passage of the zon- ing ordinance reflect that the councilmen agreed that C-1 zones were the ideal loca- tion for dry cleaning establishments using the type solvents described in the quoted section; that such businesses were not dan- gerous then (1965) ; and that,allowirig such businesses to locate in C-1 zones would pro- vide a better service to the public, but im- mediate location of such businesses in those zones would put the present dry cleaning establishments at an undue disadvantage. The primary point of controversy at this meeting was the effective date for the dry cleaning provision which in the draft before the council at that time was January 1, 1968. One councilman stated, "The idea is to give us a grace period where people can adjust themselves to new competition, and this is the reason why this three years was put in. It was not unanimous on the zoning committee. In fact I think one person wanted more; one person wanted five and. one person wanted to put it in immediately and it was more or less of a compromise that it should take a certain amount of time." Another councilman concluded " * * * the only question is whether or not it should be made at once, or whether or not it should be given a reasonable amount of time." The vote on the ordinance was delayed until the next meeting. On March 25, 1965,. one of the councilmen wrote a memo to all other members stating: "It is my intention to make a motion that the revised Zoning Ordinance be passed' with substitution of the date January 1,. 1970, in lieu of January 1, 1968, in Sec- tion 7, subsection (a), line (13). This will, I believe, satisfy both opposing factions on this issue. "We will not be put in the position of `legislating against progress' nor will we be putting the established cleaning firms - at a competitive disadvantage without, sufficient warning." The subject section was subsequently pass- ed by the Commission with the portion ap- plying to dry cleaning made effective Jan- uary 1, 1970. With the foregoing facts before us, we re- view the chancellor's decree which stated: "3. The minutes of the regular meeting - of the City Council held February 25,. 1965, prior to enactment of the new Zon- ing Code, disclose that Sub -section 13 of Section 38.14 as it pertains to dry clean- ing establishments is not founded upon any purpose of promoting the health, safe- ty, morals or the general welfare of the community. "4. It cannot be ascertained whether the City Council would have permitted dry cleaning establishments in C-1 Districts. without the qualification set forth in the last sentence of Sub -section 13; however, 11788 I WYATT v. CITY OF PENSACOLA Cite as, Fla., 196 So.2d 777 launderettes were permitted under the prior Zoning Code, and the provision of Sub -section 13 pertaining to launderettes is severable. "It is therefore ORDERED AND AD- JUDGED that the following provision of Section 38.14 of the Code'of Ordinances of the City of Pensacola is -hereby de- clared to be unconstitutional, null and void: `(13) * * * and dry cleaning es- tablishments utilizing solvents rated as nonflammable or as nonflammable at ordinary temperatures and only moder- ately flammable at higher temperatures. Dry cleaning establishments shall not be permitted in this classification until January 1, 1970.' and said sub -section of said ordinance shall hereafter read as follows: `(13) Launderettes.' and it is further ORDERED AND AD- JUDGED that dry cleaning establish- ments shall not be permitted in C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Districts un- less and until the Council of the City of Pensacola, within its sound legislative discretion, determines otherwise by ap- propriate ordinance." [1-3] That portion of the chancellor's decree finding " * * * dry cleaning es- tablishments shall not be permitted in C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Districts unless and until the Council of the City of Pensa- cola, within its sound legislative discretion, determines otherwise * * * " is wholly without foundation. The. Council of the City of Pensacola within its. sound legisla- tive discretion found that Zone C-1 was the proper location for the operation of: ig * * - * dry cleaning establishments utilizing solvents rated as nonflammable 1. See Section 176.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Fla. 779 or as nonflammable at ordinary temper- atures and only moderately flammable at higher temperatures." Such legislative finding is supported by this record. It is equally clear that the last sen- tence of said section " * * * dry clean- ing establishments shall not be permitted in this classification until January 1, 1970" is not founded upon any purpose relating to the promotion of health, safety, morals or general welfare. This sentence is clearly severable and the chancellor erred by not so holding. [4] The chancellor stated in his final decree that, " * * * It cannot be ascer- tained whether the City Council would have permitted dry cleaning establishments in C-1 Districts without the qualification set forth in the last sentence. * * * " According to this record, the sole basis for the sen- tence delaying the effective date until 1970 was economical —that is, to restrict competi- tion in this industry through the use of the police power. Municipalities may not use their zoning powers for this purpose.' The - late Judge Sturgis of this Court concisely stated the principle controlling here in Abdo v. City of Daytona,2 wherein he stated: "The fact is that the credible evidence in this cause and the conclusions thereon as stated by the chancellor reflect that the sole basis for invocation of the police power in the manner provided by the or- dinance rests on economic impact rather than upon any aesthetic- considera- tion. %Vhen economic impact standing alone becomes a sufficient basis for such discriminatory legislation it will mark the extinction of the last vestige of the eco- nomic system under which this govern- ment operates." [5] The sentence postponing the effec- tive date of the provision is a tumor upon an otherwise healthy ordinance; rather than striking the entire ordinance, the chancellor 2. Abdo v. City of Daytona Beach, 147 So.2d 598 (F1a.App. 1st, 1962). I LAM 780 Fla. 196 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES should have used his judicial scalpel and severed the tumor. Reversed. the balance due, tendered such balance, been ready, willing and able to pay such balance, or been excused from such per- formance. CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHN- 2. Specific Performance «97(I) SON, JJ., concur. As co d't' W O 5 NEf NUMBER SYSTEM T George B. GLAVE and Jane F. Glave, his wife, Appellants, V. Carl R. BRANDLEIN and Dorcas Brandleln, his wife, Appellees. N o. 204. District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District. March 13, 1967. Rehearing Denied April 10, 1967 Action for specific .performance of real estate sales contract brought by ven- dees against vendors. The Circuit Court for Brevard County, Roger F. Dykes, J., rendered judgment in favor of the ven- ders and the vendees appealed. The Dis- trict Court of Appeal, Walden, C. J., held that vendees were not entitled to specific performance of real estate sales contract because of vendors' failure to deliver an abstract and policy of title insurance re- quired by contract where vendees had nei= ther tendered purchase price balance nor showed their willingness and present abil- ity to do so. Affirmed. 1. Specific Performance 0-117 To obtain specific performance of real estate sales contract by vendee, he must allege and prove that he has either paid n i ion precedent to specific - performance of real estate sales contract,. where the vendor has failed to deliver an abstract or offer a policy of title insur- ance required by contract, purchaser must either pay the contract sum; tender it; es- tablish that he is ready, willing and able to do so; or establish that he has been ex- cused from so doing. 3. Specific Performance 'G=97(I) Vendees were not entitled to specific performance of real estate sales contract because of vendors' failure to deliver an abstract and policy of title insurance re- quired by contract where vendees had nei- ther tendered purchase price balance nor showed their willingness and present abil- ity to do so. 4. Specific Performance a121(11) Record in vendees' action for specific performance of real estate sales contract did not establish that vendees were ready,. willing and able to pay balance of purchase price. Ralph Geilich, of Williams & Geilich,. Melbourne, for appellants. Lealand L. Lovering, of Miller, Cone, Owen, Wagner & Nugent, Rockledge, for - appellees. WALDEN, Chief Judge. Defendants contracted to sell certain land to plaintiffs. When defendants refused to convey, the plaintiffs sued in chancery to force defendants as vendors to specifically perform their contract. The chancellor found that plaintiffs as vendees had failed to tender the balance 11788 i �11 LAZARO MILTON CONSULTING ENGINEER GENERAL CONTRACTOR April 17, 1995 TO: City of Miami Planing Building & Zoning Dept. RE: 3711-13 S.W.27th Street Gentlemen: 2700 S.W. 23 TERRACE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33145 PHONE: 444-8326 We are hereby requesting a change of designation on the above - relerenced property. This property abutts a site that was re- cently rezoned and that we are presently using for additional parking for the new apartment complex (see attached photo). If the subject property is rezoned, the entire site will be under a Unity of Title. The new apartments will be attached to the existing building, Douglas Cove at: 2660 S.W. 37th Ave. Please be aware, that under the present .zoning boundaries in this particular situation, the existing zoning only extend 104' from Douglas Road. It is practically impossible to deve- lop any decent luxury project on a 100' deep property. That's why the change of zoning, adding an additional 60' to the property, is a "NATURAL" thing to do. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Lazaro Milton, Gen.Partner ALMANY GROUP,INC. LM/ 1 s Enclosure THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS OPPOSE THE CHANGE IN ZONING AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF piSTRICT REGULATIONS, FROM R-2 TWO—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL. ! A 44 7 j3Zc� Adik City of Miami BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT FORM Permit No. Permit Type: Folio No: Plan No. i(j '_,.JJ T; �4� JDat,!- Owner/Lessee Name: Contractor: r 19l.A V E J;�`­ON 'i i r J. r. - , Qualifier's Name: Certification/Registration No: Telephone: JL . ..... Owner/Lessee Address: Legal Description: M A 11" 7:1 Contractor's Address: Phone No: MM .... ....... Engineer: Architect: T F Job Address: Unit/Location: Prop Building Type: Prop. Group Occupancy: Prop. Building Ht. Primary Zone: Fire Zone: Job Description: Plan Type APPROVED BY DATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 011 if R, V F0 0 E A, �07 w1f Thres odTlnspector:1 Job Namo�-""�: Certificates Required: Estimated Cost C.O. C.C. C.U. MASTER PERMIT hl FEE DESCRIPTION_--.--- UNIT TYPE UNITS FEE T F E. 3 11' 1 E V 17LO id.... ... . .... T I General Conditions: 1. Permit expires if construction is not begun within 180 days, or as is consistent with South Florida Building Code. 2. Call each division (structral, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and zoning) for inspections. 3. Approved plans and notice commencement must be on job with permit posted before inspections will be made. 4. Reinspection fees will be charged if work is not approved or not ready when called for, or if approved plans are not on job site at time of inspections. 5. Obtain Certificate of Occupancy from department when required, before using completed building. PLEASE NOTE: Failure to comply with mechanics lien law can result in the property owner paying twice for building improvements. D 1BZ/lS 413 Rev. 11 /92 1 Distribution: Original - Department Section File; Canary - Applicant's Copy. r- -I Ah -low City of Miami BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT FORM Permit No. Permit Type: Folio No: Date: Plan No: r.r.. ..... Owner/Lessee Name: Contractor: (- ,A R I B13'E* -A. I o 3-: (1E It T ,L11- FI f N D Qualifier's Name: Certification/ Registration No: Telephone: ("'00 0 Owner/Lessee Address: Legal Description: . . 201 S111", **.-.3 GIT '�!%'ID ;`:'! I ,!., L— AM.Pl; M. '11 177T 0 T -T A., X 1. 11 3 Contractor's Address: Phone No: F'%'R W 1i; (S MIAMI F"L., 1 0 0 0 Engineer: Architect: Job Address: Unit/Location: AV Prop Building Type: Prop. Group Occupancy: Building Ht: Primary Zone: Fire Zone: Job Description: PlanType APPROVED BY DATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL F1 L.7c, 5 i. 9 9 Z! 5 1. C? 9 PW 15 9 9 Threshold Inspector: Job C6itificates Required: Estimated Cost:Cost:1. c) 1C.O. FIC.C. C.U.O MASTER PERMIT NO. C)."2 01 1(3 FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT TYPE UNITS FEE I c3.1. 0' 1\1 OF` F'LAI\J.3 1. �31-11_---E-1- -ik- k -1 �-1 C k") N T F'6- C 1- D F" S P M CF*,",EDIT :2 CW�H T-O TAI F'A I D General Conditions: 1. Permit expires if construction is not begun within 180 days, or as is consistent with South Florida Building Code. 2. Call each division (structral, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and zoning) for inspections. 3. Approved plans and notice commencement must be on job with permit posted before inspections will be made. 4. Reinspection fees will be charged if work is not approved or not ready when called for, or if approved plans are not on job site at time of inspections. 5. Obtain Certificate of Occupancy from department when required, before using completed building. PLEASE NOTE: Failure to comply with mechanics lien law can result in the property owner paying twice for' building improvements. D I BZ/IS 413 Rev. 11 /92 1 Distribution: Original - Department Seciion File; Canary - Applicant's Copy. rW "10 Ah AL City of Miami °C�,,� BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT FORM Permit No. Permit Type: Folio No: Date: Plan No: 9 1 6 I B, L J I I — - Zil - I M )c 19 Owner/Lessee Name: Contractor: ., (.' 17', T If) f�4 C) & riff!: X1. 11.1,A-1-CM! 0 KI -1- L C" 1 0 R Qualifier's Name: Certification/ Registration No: Telephone: MIL-TE'N LAZAIM Owner/Lessee Address: Legal Description: I W -MD PLAT OF M I AM 1 3 U I U F'%`-.'.'A N .. ... MiAmi F L L. 01- 6 N1`.:5F-­!- (31: 1 f Contractor's Address: Phone No: 1 6 2 m I.. r) M -1 3 14 (D (a) Engineer:. Architect: Job Address: Unit/Location: A 11) Prop Building Type: Group Occupan Prop. G Occupancy: Prop. Building Ht: Primary Zone: Pn F Fire Zone: Job Description: JPIan Type NEW CONG)TRILIC'TION MULT''I !"Ar" APPROVED BY DATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1`3 L D G V 11 0 5 19 9 4 4- IF T' R E' F-C C) E"I 19 9 4 7 'J C 1.3w FC '11. 9 /9 4 ZONE ETC 05 19 / 9 4 Threshold Inspector: Nam&` ired: Required: Estimated Cost 0 J T� FC(iitificates 11 C.O. C.C. C.U.EI MASTER PERMIT NO. 3 2 4 E� FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT TYPE UNITS FEE - F*�'E*V. OF F1 MORE 11'W-)N ISHEET I E- 17 �7) .T O.T. r, . r.7 1— 1-:.- (D G. CRE.".DT''T C A C A S)l I T General Conditions: 1. Permit expires if construction is not begun within 180 days, or as is consistent with South Florida Building Code. 2. Call each division (structral, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and zoning) for inspections. 3. Approved plans and notice commencement must be on job with permit posted before inspections will be made. 4. Reinspection fees will be charged if work is not approved or not ready when called for, or if approved plans are not on job site at time of inspections. 5. Obtain Certificate of Occupancy from department when required, before using completed building. PLEASE NOTE: Failure to comply with mechanics lien law can result in the property owner paying twice for building improvements. J D 1BZ/IS 413 Rev. 11 /92 1 Distribution: Original - Department Section File; Canary - Applicant's Copy. Of City of Miami BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT FORM Per"0�0�3 0 12 11 ffb I N G FNip 1,L - ?:1. 16 ---- 0 0 3.16 0 C lal?� 7 0 7 19 9 4 P'8,� P, -2:c) c) i i oc_., (e. OwrNkFMS�_M: 2(.)C)(-) 1-7 AV 2. 000 1 =7 In -.coqfftcLOTON L CONSTRUCTION CORP 1K QuWe: Cerific�j5�fa�p,!!nAi9p No: Teleph 1r50.) r,..,65RLAZARO ow,!,pE1)11es,n$jA(re!ft Legal OF MIAMI SUBURBA1,11 ACRE4`; MIAMI FL LOT 46`:; N15FT OF LOT 47 BLK 7 PB LOT SIZE 65. 0o0 X 1. 175 OR 15624----()765 0 3 9'2 5 ConLfapl%vess TERR ; Phone NP MIAMI 0000 , FL, 33145 Engi eef3COTT­—ARCH I TECTURE Architeft* AVI D VOL f--E 1::'k'T & AS�-30C Job 4"':SW 37 AV _J I Unit/Location: I Prop Building Type: Prop. Group Occupancy: Prop. Building Ht: 1 1 9 0 Primary "I Zone: Fire Zone: Job Description: NEW CONSTRUCTION MULTI FAMILY Plan,_,pe APAD F9n,9& =P&194 T CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ELEC MDG 07/07/94 APPROVAL N(T'r NEEDED FOR SHOP DRAWING F I RE MD G 07/07/94 APPROVAL NEEDED FOR SHOP DRAW I N G'3) MAIR MDG C-)7/07/94 APPROVAL NOT NEEDED FOR SHOP DRAW I NGE3 PLMB MD G 07/07/94 AP!---,ROVAL NI'T'l- N E ACE- D E 1) FOR SHOP DRAWING`: PW MD G o7/07/94 APPROVAL NOT NEEDED FGR SHOP DRAWINGE� S T R U VM o 7 / () 71901- SHOP DRAW I!*,.! t.:3 01," SW MD G 07/07/94 APPROVAL NOT NEEDED FnR SHOP DRAWINGS ZONE RAF: 07/07/94 ThrNoN1d"1.4P:4a0P Job Name!.---, C4Aificates Required: Estimated CV. I 10C.O.0c.c. Elcy. I MASTER PERMIT NO. 93 9- 2 E3 4 WWAMPT! UNIT TYPE UNITS i. FEE R V 1 E. 1 E)N 91 1EE_T E)N[-.', E)E)F)e TOTAL_. FEES 2 � 5 2 5. CHI::' NO. 8327 215 C: CREDIT CARD CASH TOTAL- PAID C)c T(.1TAL DUE 0. (-)c General Conditions: 1. Permit expires if construction is not begun within 180' days, or as is consistent with South Florida Building Code. 2. Call each division (structral, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and zoning) for inspections. 3. Approved plans and notice commencement must be oii job with permit posted before inspections will be made. 4. Reinspection fees will be charged if work is not approved or not ready when called for, or if approved plans are not .on job site at time of inspections. 5. Obtain Certificate of Occupancy from department when required, before using completed building. PLEASE NOTE: Failure to comply with mechanics lien law can result in the property owner paying twice for' building improvements. I D JBZ/1S 413 Rev. 11 /92 1 Distribution: Original - Department Section File; Canary - Applicant's Copy. DEPARTMENT USE ONLY City of Miami Plan Numbers: BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION q4X1)0q69 Folio No: 01 — 4 It —11 6 0 1?ActUal Application Status: Application ❑ Dry Run Tod bue4q_qe�— , Job Address: 2-35/ 5.0- Unit/Location: r it Lessee Name: Comm: Res: ❑ Owner's Name: Building Permit: ub/Permit: ❑ g Owner's Mailing Address: Owner's Telephone: 2� �vZu� 36 / -S Contractor's Name: Contracto s Telep ne: Contractor's Registration tuber: L • 141 (3- �3 UGC. oo 3 8,4/0 733 Contractor's , -� Address: Aj Z3� 3 / / 0 J / /�• Qualifier's Name: �d 1 Social Security No:: e�ra-y✓ M r Architect: �• Architect's T32hS � / J�Us Engineer: (�lV4 4 4-r-7A Engineer's Telephone: 66 - 0310 Threshold Inspector: �.�.< Threshold Inspector Telephone: 6.6 7 - /92 5 Bonding Company: Address: Permit Type: Building Q Lanscape U Mechanical/AC ❑ Mechanical/Boiler ❑Electrical Q Mechanical/Elevator CI Mechanical/Gas U Plumbing ❑ Sign For Building Permits check appropriate type: New Construction U Addition U Demolition ❑ Remodeling ❑ Repair ❑ Conversion ❑ Roofing ❑ Foundation Proposed Use of Building: 6Gallons: L timated Cost: Height: (Proposed) �j 3 6aa Total Feet: U Lineal Units: Floors: Job Descripition: $1) oeo *Square /6 9 4 77-145j#- C�V Check all applicable boxes: Q Change of Contractor (CR) U Recertification of Plans (RC) ❑ Plans Revision (RV) (Plan Type) ❑ Completion Permit (CP) U Change of Qualifier (CO) ®, 5AW bA01Wj,(V,!!r5- If this permit is related to another permit. You must ovide the following: q 3 r 922-0` 3'QO� V 0 3 Master Permit No: Plans No: 1 understand that separate permits must be obtained for other items, unless specifically covered by this permit. In signing this application, I am responsible for the supervision and completion of the construction in accordance with the plans and specifications and for compliance with all feder- al, state, and county laws applicable I certify that : ❑ there are no trees to be removed or relocated on this site as a result of the construction for which this application is submitted. or ❑ that a tree removal permit application has been approved. I have read the information contained in this permit and understand that any falsification constitutes fraud and could void the permit. Signatu a of Qualifier or Owner Builder Print Name Proof of Ownership: Date Accepted: Clerk Accepted: Signed and Sealed before me this day of Year My Commission Expires: Notary Public: FOR PLA ING BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Legal Address: Dupl: Tracking Required: Current Use: Job Code: Census Code: Certificates Required: Plans: No of Sheet ❑ C.O. ❑ C.U. U C.C. Yes U No As built survey with elevation and setbacks is required after completion Lowest Finished Floor Elevation (including basement) of lowest floor slab before any further inspection. Q Yes ❑ No SFH CHH OTHERS Shall be at least Group Occupancy: DISTRICTS inches above crown of street. Building Height (Existing): Quadruple Fee: REQUIRED ❑ Yes ❑ No PROPOSED EXISTING -7 k"') R 94 �=ja� LC Application Receive Date Permif Authorized By D D I BZ/IS414 Rev. 02/94 1 Distribution: Original - Department Section File; Canary - Applicant's Copy; Pink - Department File. I A I V U 1W • HAROLD CHOPP SUITE 4950, FIRST UNION FINANCIAL CENTER 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD MIAMI, FLORIDA.33 13 1 TELEPHONE: (305)37 1 -22 1 2 March 22, 1999 Alex Villarello, Esq. City Attorney City of Miami 444 S.W. 2"d Avenue Miami, FL 33130 FAX: (305)356-9205 Re: Change of Zoning and Proposed Amendment of City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan for Properties Located at Approximately 3674, 3680, 3690 S.W. 26tn Terrace and 3675 S.W. 27th Street/Zoning Case No. 1998- 0151/Planning Case No. 98-036 Dear Mr. Villarello: This letter is to advise you that the undersigned is IN FAVOR of the above application for rezoning to Classification C-1 and is IN FAVOR of the SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District application. Further, the purpose of this letter made to you by Attorney John Shubin in his to present to you and the City Commission circumstances. A. UNDERLYING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: is to rebut the presentation letter of March 18, 1999 and omitted underlying facts and 1. Attorney Shubin wrote a letter to City Clerk Teresita Fernandez on February 19, 1999 identifying his client as Almany Investors, Ltd. Records of the Secretary of State's office indicate that Almany Investors, Ltd. is an entity controlled by Lazaro Milton who owns an apartment building known as Douglas Cove Apartments directly across the street from the subject property. 2. Prior to the execution of a contract for purchase and sale of the subject property to be rezoned and reclassified, Mr. Lazaro Milton offered to buy the subject property from the owner, Sol C. Mandel, for a sum substantially less than value. Sol C. Mandel rejected the offer and executed a contract to purchase for higher sum with the undersigned. L • Q Alex Villarello, Esq. City Attorney City of Miami March 22, i999 Page 2 3. A construction company owned and/or controlled by Mr. Lazaro Milton constructed an apartment building on Douglas Road known as Gables Terrace Apartments. This apartment building is located approximately one -quarter mile from the subject property and Mr. Milton's other apartment building, Douglas Cove. Gables Terrace Apartments, constructed by Mr. Lazaro Milton, is located within the Douglas Road Corridor and has an SD-19_Desianated F.A.R. Overlay for an F.A.R. of 2.5. In other words, Mr. Lazaro Milton availed himself of the benefits of an SD-19 Overlay in the construction of Gables Terrace Apartments but does not want others to do the same. 4. On Tuesday, March 2, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Lazaro Milton, Mr. Sol C. Mandel and the undersigned met in the undersigned's office at Suite 4950, First Union Financial Center, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, City of Miami, Florida. Mr. Milton in that meeting clearly stated that he was opposed to the SD-19 overlay district solely because of competitive reasons. Mr. Milton indicated to the undersigned and Mr. Mandel that he believed there is not a sufficient tenant base to support additional building (our marketing studies dramatically indicate otherwise) and he was concerned that there would be apartment size competition, unit configuration competition, and project competition based on amenities, etc. Mr. Milton clearly indicated that he wanted the opportunity to review and approve plans and specifications of the proposed apartment building so that he could eliminate any competitive advantage: No definitive plans now exist. 5. In Mr. Shubin's letter to City Clerk Teresita Fernandez dated February 19, 1999, Mr. Shubin stated that all zoning meetings should be canceled because Mr. Milton did not receive notice at the proper address. This objection is now moot as a result of his appearance on behalf of Mr. Milton in writing you correspondence and otherwise. Alternatively, there is no basis for this argument as the property records clearly indicate. B. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO SHUBIN & BASS CORRESPONDENCE TO CITY DATED MARCH 18, 1999: I. Special Zoning Districts Under The City of Miami Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Shubin's client, Mr. Lazaro Milton, has established the precedent for using an SD-19 Overlay:on Douglas Road. Mr. Shubin presents a prolix argument that the SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District fails to set forth with specificity the public 4 IR Alex Villarello, Esq. March 22, 1999 City Attorney Page 3 City of Miami interest involved, with objectives to be promoted or the procedures to be followed, when seeking to utilize the District. Section 619.1 of the City of Miami zoning ordinance specifically names the Douglas Road corridor from U.S. Highway #1 to Coral Way as a location in which the City wishes to apply the SD-19 Overlay District as requested in this petition. It does so because of the obvious: Douglas Road is a relatively unused, extremely wide thoroughfare with commercial uses on both sides (including Mr. Milton's two apartment buildings) and tries to make such area a location for relatively dense commercial use. The obvious need not be codified. The procedures to obtain. the SD-19 Overlay District are also obvious and require approval by City advisory boards, the City Commission, and the State of Florida. II. The SD-19 District is Unconstitutional and Void for Its Lack of Specific Standards. Mr. Shubin's client, Mr. Lazaro Milton, has established the precedent for using an SD-19 Overlay on Douglas Road. The specific standards for the use of the SD-19 Overlay District is clear in its application to certain designated areas as specified in zoning ordinance Section 619.1 and 619.2. Purported statements of unconstitutionality are presented for the purpose of obfuscating the issues at hand. Mr. Shubin's client seeks a competitive advantage. Mr. Shubin's client waived his argument against unconstitutional issues by virtue of his use of the SD-19 Overlay District in the construction of Gables Terrace. It would be ridiculous to think that Mr. Lazaro Milton would deem the S.D-19 Overlay District to be unconstitutional and then demolish his Gables Terrace building under such unconstitutional zoning ordinance. III. An Overlay District Without Specific Standards Equals Illegal Spot Zoning Mr. Shubin's client, Mr. Lazaro Milton, has established the precedent for using an SD-19 Overlay on Douglas Road. One can not argue spot zoning or spot planning when the ordinance granting or creating the SD-19 Overlay specifically names certain corridors to be selected for such use density. The City Commission selected these areas for such density because of their obvious use and made the SD-19 Overlay permissible for any property owner seeking such density through appropriate rezoning methods as promulgated by the City Commission, Advisory Boards, and the State. It Alex Villarello, Esq. March 22, 1999 City Attorney Page 4 City of Miami The arguments presented by Mr. Lazaro Milton's attorney have a singular basis and that is the elimination or the hindrance of competition. Mr. Milton attempted to do this by attacking the notice and now attempt to do same by raising the above mentioned alleged constitutional and other arguments. -The facts are clear that Mr. Milton used the SD-19 overlay to his advantage and now seeks to prevent the use of the SD-19 by others to his advantage. Esoteric arguments of constitutionality need to be viewed in light of the underlying factual information above stated. For the purpose of entering the factual information into the record, the undersigned has executed a sworn notarial indicating same. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby requests that the arguments raised by Mr. Shubin in his letter to you dated March 18, 1999 be disregarded because of facts indicating the sole motivation is competitive advantage and that the legal arguments present do not have any basis in Florida law nor in the City of Miami municipal ordinances. Very truly yours, Aw4vzl Harold Chopp STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE BEFORE ME, the undersigned, an officer duly authorized to take oaths and acknowledgments, personally appeared HAROLD CHOPP, personally known to me, who swears that the factual representations contained in Item A above are true, correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. DATED this AWday of cc: Joel Maxwell, Esq. Sol C. Mandel March 9. Not ry Public, State of Florida at Large OF 7_'1"11, NOTARY SEAL aAH3, pp, O_;CR NOTARY PL'BLI` STATc F FT GIUDA COMAdISSIOIV NO. CCy°��Q P/IYCOMI�IISSIORt EXP. AMR. 19,200 MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Octelma V. Ferbeyre, who on oath says that she is the Supervisor, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business Review tlk/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of _. li _ 4 II 0 ORDINANCE NO. 11788 in the ..................... XX.XXX........................................ Court, was published in said newspaper in the issues of May 13, 1999 Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Dade County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Dade County, Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Miami in said Dade County Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached ' copy of.advertisement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission • or the purpose of securinerthis advertisem o oublicat n in the said ^pfn to and subscribe a me this 13 ay 99 d�v of..... .................... A.D. 19...... (SEAL) �p tSY POF1`04L NOTARY SEAL JANETT LLERENA Octelma V. Fe IFev� �kno�r i o SSeoN NUMBER Q CCw66004 9� MY COW: -MISSION EXPIRES ``OF DoJUNE 23,2000 LEGALNOTICE w All interested persons'will take notice that on tfde,'27tli-day of Aril, 1999,:Itie` City Commission_ of, d4tie Miami, Florida ado�follow ti- tied ordinances:' ORDINANCE NO.11783 � : -- AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE -OF THEnM(A1A1 -CIT�C COMMISSION AMENDING .ORDINANCE "ND`Ui j,•463, A, .AMENDED. ADOPTED ;MARCH, 20; 19p.r•-ENTITLED;j 'LOCAL FLAW ENFORCEMENT- BLOCK :@PA T' PRO GRAM": THEREBY PROVIDING FQSE T� . , i SAID FUND. IN THE AMOUNT OF $107 9 115r pTIEPRFE SENTING INTEREST EARNED FROM I�SECO YE -GRANT FUNDING, MONIES: AUTHORIZING T E" CI `. _MANAGER TO EXECUTE'THE NECESSARY DO(JUMENT ! IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE'TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. 'FOR APPROPRIATION OF SAID=INTEREST; FURTHER COR-, RECTING SCRIVENER'S ERRORS IN ORDINANCE NOS. . 11463, 11547, AND 11686 TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED TO SAID FUND - BY EACH ORDINANCE: CONTAINING A- REPEALER PROVISION;- 4 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR ANC EF- FECTIVE DATE. . ORDINANCE NO. 11784 y ' AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO' 11332, .AS AMENDED, ADOPTED JANUARY 25, 1996.,,WHICH, ES- TABL-ISHED=INITI'AL- RESOURCES AND -INITIAL'APPRO-^ ' r PRIATIONS FORA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: 'GANG RESISTANCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING" TO INCREASE SAID APPROPRIATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF •$356,000., CONSISTING OF GRANT FROM THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOLIC. TOBACCO AND FIREARMS;'-AUTHORIZ- '?,ING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT,, AND TO -EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), _IN-. A FORM: ACCEPTABLE TO:THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE: AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO,EX- PEND MONIES FROM THIS FUND FOR NECESSARY EX: PENSES TO CONTINUE'THEOPERATION.Or THE PRO- GRAM; AND FURTHER CORRECTING A. SCRIVENER'S.. ERROR TO; ACCURATELY REFLECT'THE AMOUNT. PUR-_,. -SUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 11660 APPROPRIATED TO. SAID FUND CONTAINING:A REPEALER PROVISION -AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE'. ' - .ORDINANCE NO. 11785 - ; .`AN'EMERGENCY"ORDINANCE. OF THE MIAMI: CITY ,COMMISSION, ESTABLISHING A. - NEW SPECIAL,-REVE, "NUE FUND ENTITLED:: "SYETP :.99 SUMMER- YOUTH" EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PROGRAM" -AND APPROPRIAT i' ING FUNDS FOR THE.OPERATION OF SAID PROGRAM -IN THE AMOUNT OF $467,040:.CONSISTING OF kGRANT, FROM -•THE SOUTW: FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT. '_ AND " TRAINING' CONSORTIUM (SFETC): AUTHORIZING THE,.. CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE.NECESSARY DOCU- MENTS, IN, A -FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE. CITY, ATTOR,- NEY,' FOR THE ACCEPTANCE .OF -SAID GRANT.:.CON.• ._ TAINING -A,REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY. CLAUSEi.AND"PROVIDING. FOR AN EFFECTIVEDATE. , ORDINANCE NO.,11786 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE II,: SECTION 2-33(i).,OF THE CODE OF THE,CITY OF,MIAMI,--FLOR1,DA, AS AMENDED. .ENTITLED: "ADMI- NISTRATION/CITY COMMISSION/ORDER-.OF'-BUSINESS " 'AND' ,'f3ULES. ; OF' PROCEDURE, . "TO CORRECTLY REFLECT- THE TIME 'AGENDA ITEMS SHALL . BE SCHEDULED AND TO ALLOW CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THAT.ARE,REMOVED ,FROM THE.CONSENT AGENDA TO B.E CONSIDERED, BY: AN UNANIMOUS VOTE OF ALL . COMMISSIONERS PRESEN,TAS;;REGULAR. ITEMS AT THE:SAME MEETING; CONTAI'IIN,GG AtREPEALER PRO C VI910N' AND A SEVERABIL'ITYiCLAUSE cPROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE: -0-R—DINJURCE NO. 11787 —,. "AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMIS- SION. WITH ATTACHMENT(S). APPROVINGJHE CREA- TION OF THE "NATOMA MANORS ROVING SECURITY t {GUARD- SPECIAL: TAXING -DISTRICT" BY MIAMI-'DADE COUNTY FOR THE NATOMA MANORS NEIGHBORHOOD, MIAMI, FLORID& FOA,THE PURPOSE OF, PROVIDING ROVING POLICE 00RbL''SLRVICE, SUBJECT TO COM- PLIANCEWITH APPLICABLE CITYOF MIAM-1 ("CITY-) AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY.' ("COUNTY"), REQUIREMENTS; AP- PROVING NECESSARY - EXPENDITURES' FOR SAID ROVING OFF -DUTY POLICE PATROL SERVICE; REQUIR- 111`4G EXECUTION.'OF AN INTERLOCAL:'AG REEM ENT,` IN SUBSTANTIALLY'. T , HE' . ATTACHED FORM; BETWEEN -THE - CITY XN15'COUNTY' CONTAINING A REPEALERPROVW' SION . SEVE RABILITY,CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN% - EFFECTIVE DA TL, ORDINANCE NO N��OkDlf( NCE WITH -'ATTAs AMENDING PAGE NO. 42 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION IN ORDER TO ADD SD-1.9 DESIGNATED F.A.R. . OVERLAY DISTRICT F.A.R. 2.5) FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3674. 3680 AND 3690 SOUTHWEST 26th"TERRACE 2665 SOUTHWEST 37th AVENUE AND 3675 SOUTHWEST 27th,,STf3EET1 MIAMI�IFLORIDA,, AS, MORE PARTICULARLY' LEGALLY DESCRIBED RIBIE I D ON, EX-. HIBIT "A"; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND 4 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PRO-. VIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVEtATE,.-' ORDINANCE NO. 11799 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION,' WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING PAGE NO. 14 OF THE ZONING, ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,. FLORIDA, BY CHANGING - THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION IN ORDER To ADD,SD'12 BUFFER OVERLAY 'DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES' LOCATED- AT -APPROXIMATELY 6201 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, 620 NORTHWEST 63rd STREET AND 629 NORTHEAST 62nd STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PART16ULARLY'LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT 'A"; MAKING , FINDINGS'-, CONTAINING A REPEALER' PROVISION -AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND, PRO- VIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.. ORDINANCE NO. 11790 AN ORDINANCE-OFTHE MIAMI CITY.. COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO., 11000. AS AMENDED, .THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE *6, SECTION 608: SD-8 DESIGN PLAZA COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE PARKING i REQUIREMENTS FOR RESI- DENTIAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE SD . 8 DISTRICT WHICH ARE ADAPTIVE . REUSES OF EXISTING STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO A CLASS 11 SPECIAL PERMIT; CON TAINING! A REPEALER PROVISION AND ' SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 'ORDINANCE NO. 1'1.791, AN. EMERGENCY OF THE- MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE. ZONING -ORDINANCE BY AMENDING. 'ARTICLE 4_SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS,. C-2 -LIBERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO CLARIFY THAT RESIDENTIAL1 USES ARE CONDI i. TIONALLY -PERMISSIBLE;,.,CONT;AINING A REPEALER. PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVID'. INd FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE., Said ordinances may be inspected by the p6blic-at the Office of the City'Clerk, .�3500 Pan American Drive, Miami,. Florida. Monday through Friday, excludin6-holidays, between the hours of 8 a-.m. and 5.0..m. - WalterJ.Foerfian City'Clerk (#5228)- c14 o " , :. -, — , t, AQ-4-05 IMM C.) . :1- > %6 Im 0==l M > :1 _j > 1-A _­J