HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-99-0308J-99-319 (a) ((,��
4/23/99 RESOLUTION NO. 5 9 0 8
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD
THEREBY GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO PERMIT A PARKING LOT
IN THE CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 151
NORTHEAST FIRST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, PER
PLANS ON FILE, WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF 12
MONTHS TO PULL A BUILDING PERMIT AND SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) A NEW SITE
PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
WHICH MODIFIES THE LAYOUT SO AS TO LOCATE ONE
OF THE THREE HANDICAPPED SPACES ALONG THE EAST
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE OTHER TWO ALONG
THE WEST SIDE; AND (2) A NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN
MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
WHICH INCREASES THE AMOUNT AND SIZES OF THE
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS - PARTICULARLY
ALONG NORTHEAST FIRST STREET AND THE SIDES OF
THE PROPERTY.
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting
of February 22, 1999, Item No. 8, duly adopted Resolution
No. ZB-1999-0150 by a five to one (5-1) vote, granting a special
exception as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Miami, requires City
CITY COMUSSION
ME ING OF
APR 2 7 1999
Revolution No.
99- 3U8
It"_
071
Commission approval of the special exception as hereinafter set
forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of
this matter, finds the application for special exception does
meet the applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000,
as amended, and deems it advisable and in the best interest of
the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to
affirm the decision of the Zoning Board and grant the Special
Exception as hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference
thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. The decision of the Zoning Board to Grant a
Special Exception from Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, Article 4,
Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations, to permit a
parking lot in the CBD Central Business Zoning District for the
property located at approximately 151 Northeast First Street,
Miami, Florida, more particularly legally described as
Lots 17 and 18, Block 104 NORTH, as recorded in Plat Book B,
Page 41, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida, per
plans on file, with a time limitation of 12 months to pull a
building permit, subject to the following conditions: (1) a new
site plan must be submitted for review and approval which
- 2 -
99- 308
r•
h'-
modifies the layout so as to locate one of the three handicapped
spaces along the East Side of the property, and the other two
along the West side; and (2) a new landscape plan must be
submitted for review and approval which increases the amount and
sizes of the proposed landscape materials - particularly along
Northeast First Street and the sides of the property, is hereby
affirmed and the Special Exception is hereby granted.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.!'
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April 1999.
JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR
In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the Mayor did not indicate approval of
this legislation by signing it in the designated place provided, said legislation now
becomes effective with the elapse of ten (10) days m the date of Comm;ssicn tic^
regarding same, without the May r exe ci 'ing o. ATTEST: /
vJalter J. Foe . C' Clerk
WALTER J. FOEMAN
CITY CLERK
APPROVED TO hRM CORRECTNESS.t/
RNEY
61:YMT:BSS:hdb
If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at
the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If
the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately
upon override of the veto by the City Commission.
- 3 -
S9- 408
1V-
i Z-2
ZONING FACT SHEET
Case Number: 1998-0183 22-Feb-99 Item No: 8
Location: 151 NE 1 Street
Legal: (Complete legal description on file with the Office of Hearing Boards)
Applicant: Erie Corporation Lee S. Schwartz
2699 S. Bayshore Drive 100 N. Biscayne Blvd. #1410
7th Floor
Miami, FL 33133 Miami, FL 33132
App. Ph: (305) 856-2444 Rep. Ph: (305) 577-0188 ext
Rep. Fa (� _ ext
Zoning: CBD Central Business District
Request: Special Exception as listed in Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District
Regulations, to permit a parking lot in the CBD Central Business District zoning
district.
Recommendations:
Planning and Development: Approval with conditions
Public Works: No comments
Plat and Street Committee: N/A
Dade County Transportation: No comments
Enforcement History, If any C.E.B. Case No: Last Hearing Date:
Found:
Violation(s) Cited: N/A
Ticketing Action:
Daily Fine: Affidavit Non -Compliance Issued on:
Warning Letter sent on:
Total Fines to Date: Lien Recorded on:
CEB Action: See attached Exhibit "1"
History:
Analysis: Please see attached.
Zoning Board Resolution No: ZB 1999-0150
Zoning Board: Approval with conditions
Appellant: Ronald and Dorothy Leventhal
Comply Order by:
Vote: 5-1
99- 308
4-
Iu.
Anel Rodriguez �9
! LFIQ] C I T Y O F M I A M I r
ARPS PROPERTY SYSTEM
LIEN INQUIRY BY FOLIO / ADDRESS (15) PAGE NO: !00011
G
FOLIO (011004011201
ADDRESS [ 151) [NE] 11 ] (ST ] UNIT [ ]
LEGAL: 1) MIAMI NORTH PB B-41 4)
2) LOTS 17 & 18 BLK 104 5)
3) LOT SIZE 100.000 X 150 =
LIEN NO TYPE STATUS DATE COMP / ACCTNO FRONTAGE COST/AMT DUE
CE9804051 AL50 PEND 12/11/1998 .00 0.00
4521H ALO1 PRE-PEND 05/11/1991 100.00 2,060.66
SELECT ACTION:
1-INQ ENTER ACTION [1 J
NO MORE RECORDS XMIT [ J
Window ARPSWIN/1 at PRODUCTION
9 6 Pg=1 FORM RCV LTAI
Date: 4/16/99 Time: 11:53:01AM =
9- 3�
i
-
Anel Rodriguez 54, bi 4- it,
'I ra449G G f-3
!ADVI ] SECURITY [ ] ACTION [L] SCR [ ] MOD [ ] +/- [+ ] PAGE 1
!9804051] !1571] COMPLAINT TRACKING MODULE (33)
!C ] VIOLATION MAINTENANCE SCREEN
)MPLAINT NO: [9804051] TYPE: 525 STAT: LA LA BOARD: [C ] CASE NO: 9804051
REF NO: [1571) COMPLY DUE 12/06/1998 COMPLIED DATE [ ] TKT TIME
ADDRESS: E- 147 NE 1 ST TKT DATE
TICKET NO: TICKET FINE: MAINT BY: II DATE: 03/09/1998
STATUTE: C DIVN: Z SUBDIV: TRACKING: CREATE DATE: 03/09/1998
VIOLATION DESC: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EXTERIOR SURFACE STATUS: [A]
OF BUILDING.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: MIAMI NORTH PB B-41 PRIM: CBD
LOTS 17 & 18 BLK 104 SD1:
LOT SIZE 100.000 X 150 OVERRIDE: [ ]
CUSTOM VIOLATION / CORRECTION TEXT
CLARIFICATION: [THE EXTERIOR CONDITION OF THE BUILDING IS AN ]
[EYESORE FOR THE COMMUNITY. ]
f ]
CORRECTION: [PLEASE IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF YOUR PROPERTY. )
[ 1
t ]
PRESS <XMIT> TO CONTINUE
Window BZWIN/1 at PRODUCTION
22 1 Pg=1 FORM RCV LTAI
Date: 4/16/99 Time: 11:52:33AM
09- 068
I
Z"
1
:X";�;+
Anel Rodriguez Pcx3 -r— 3
!ADBD ) SECURITY [ I ACTION [L] SCR [ ) MOD [ ) +/- [+ J PAGE 1
!98040511 ! ] COMPLAINT TRACKING MODULE !9804051] (35)
BOARD MAINTENANCE SCREEN
COMPLAINT: [9804051) TICKET [ ] BOARD: C $5000 FLAG: N LIEN FLAG: P
OWNER NAME: ERIE CORPORATION STAT: LA LA PEND LIEN: 12/11/1998
EXACT ADDR: 147 NE 1 ST NET: 7 CERT LIEN:
ASSIGNED: Z II ISRAEL IBANEZ REF NO: CERT BY:
CASE NO (98040513 HEARING DATE [10071998] OUTCOME [GAF ] INSTALLMENTS [ J
APPEAL: (N) DATE [ J DEADLINE C ] PER DIEM: 250.00
2ND PARTY NAME:[ERIE CORPORATION } CAP: 0.00
ADDR [SOPHIE GILBERT ] DADE CNTY LIEN: BOOK [ ]
(9801 COLLINS AVE APT 18-W ] [ ] FROM PAGE [ )
CITY [MIAMI BEACH ) STATE [FLI ZIP [33154-1824] TO PAGE [ j
REMARKS: [ON 10/7/98 FOUND GUILTY;60 DAYS COMPLY BY 12/6/98 ]
($250 PD ]
[ } BOARD STATUS: C
ADMIN BOARD CALC TOTAL PER
FEE COST EXPENSES FINE PER DIEM DIEM ADJ
CURR BALANCE: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32750.00 0.00
TOTAL DUE: 32750.00
PRESS <XMIT> TO CONTINUE
Window BZWIN/l at PRODUCTION
Date: 4/16/99 Time: 11:52:41AM
22 1 Pg=1 FORM RCV LTAI
J- a
w
I
°4,-
ANALYSIS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
151 NE 1" Street.
CASE NO. 1998-0183
Pursuant to Section 401 of Article 4 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, The Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal has been reviewed to allow
a commercial parking lot within the Central Business District (CBD), as follows:
The following findings have been made:
• It is found that this request is in order to allow a total of 55 parking spaces (including
3 handicapped parking spaces) on the subject lot; this is specifically being
accomplished by proposing to utilize a car -lift system which will allow vertical
parking on a surface lot without permanent garage construction.
• It is found that the requested Special Exception will be beneficial to the area in
providing more parking spaces for the public within Downtown.
+ It is found that NE I" Street is a one-way street going west and as such, with
appropriate screening along the easterly side of the lot, and strategic placement of the
handicapped spaces (which do not include lifts) a majority of the vehicles parked on
the subject property can be screened so as to render them imperceptible via vehicular
traffic.
• It is found that the depicted landscape plan is insufficient to provide the type of
screening envisioned for this specific type of proposal; the landscape plan should
include heavier hedging and larger trees with additional landscape along the sides of
- ` the property.
l
• It is found that upon compliance with the conditions specified below, this project will
J not have any adverse impacts on the surrounding area.
Based on these findings, the Planning Department is recommending approval of the
application with the following conditions:
1) A new site plan must be submitted which modifies the layout so as to locate one
of the three handicapped spaces along the east side of the property, and the
other two along the west side.
2) A new landscape plan must be submitted for review and approval which
increases the amount and sizes of the proposed landscape materials -
particularly along NE 1" Street and the sides of the property.
0
i
m
m.*,wA s eowt9."I
MIAIM ARENA we.
ciwloiiii�
e
THATCHER
ENTERPRISES
PROPERTY
TR.-A- I
t.9ttX
°o
660009 ago
-.-a - - la. .100
LASON Systems, Inc. S.i .
6954 N.W. 12 STREET. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33126
305-477-9149 •800-287-4799 • FAX 305-477-7526
THE FOLLOWING IS AN
IT WILL TAKE MULTIPLE IMAGES
M
r
L
r
L
AL
a ,
i• � 4't''�' � uo � e
�, „ � , .. � ` is } { : d `•� ,';
r • r
�• a+ %br
t
w ,'.%,.fl•(4w ���:�_ .fit 'At�. b `� � ' .., . � _•r I + ". 1 .
.� _ � .., .rr•.rn�.� a r) i>.:. . ++ aua.-..1.{f : `rsa.r,,,1..�..K'a?..�n� � ,t'. + 1..� .
L Of
r �
W r
`�w µ�11rr. M� ••
.�tt,r• � C.. o+ � t r. r.
w�. ..
Lei
9-7
i i -1 _•ti gh �i `
• � l� � � � * .,i y 'J �a� as �.L��F .
r
ujy{.� i v.. ... r � �i�' � �. � -. � �l!wlrr , r +►Y1� ,.-•waa...iw-:.+
wo
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE STATE OF FLORIDA
BY AND THROUGH THE OFFICE OF HEARING BOARDS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM:
DECISION ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT (8)
BY THE CITY OF MIAMI ZONING BOARD
ON FEBRUARY, 22, 1999 - - -
SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION
NUMBER 1998-0183/151
-----------------------------------
March 8, 1999
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BY:
RONALD S. LEVENTHAL
DOROTHY A. LEVENTHAL
353 Woodlawn Drive
Marietta, Georgia 30067
Telephone: (770) 565-7757
Telecopier: (770) 578-6514
9 9 zo
Ronald S. Leventhal
Dorothy A. Leventhal
353 Woodlawn Drive
Marietta, Georgia 30067
Telephone: (770) 565-7757
Facsimile: (770) 578-6514
March 8, 1999
original Via Federal Express
Copy Via Telecopier to (305) 416-2035
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez, RA, AICP
Chief, Office of Hearing Boards
City of Miami
444 S.W. Second Avenue, 7th Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL From:
c
c
61
Decision On:
Special Exception Application #1998-01831151
N.E. First Street, Miami, Florida, heard before
The City of Miami Zoning Board on
February 22, 1999, Item Number 8
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
Please be advised that the undersigned, Ronald S. Leventhal
and Dorothy A. Leventhal (the "Leventhals" or "Appellants"), as to
the interest we represent in the property located at 151 N.E. First
Street, Miami, Florida (the "Property"), hereby appeal to the Mayor
and the City Council of the City of Miami from the decision of the
City of Miami Zoning Board with respect to the decision by that
Board on February 22, 1999, on Agenda Item Number 8, in connection
with Application Number 1998-0183.
In accordance with the requirements for such an Appeal, we
respectfully submit that the Five Hundred Dollar ($500.00) filing
fee is not payable, due to the interest we represent in the
Property. While there is disagreement between the various equity
holders with respect to whether or not the interest is held by and
through a corporation or whether or not it is now a tenancy in
common, that remains a legal issue to be resolved by a court of
competent jurisdiction. The interests of Dorothy A. Leventhal and
Ronald S. Leventhal are at risk (regardless of the nature or the
status of the title holder, either as to equity interests or
creditors, as a result of the decision of the zoning Board).
9 9 - �08
FERNANDEZ
March 8, 1999
Page Two
Although we do not believe the $500.00 is due, out of an abundance
of caution, a check in such amount is enclosed for the appeal fee,
subject to refund if it is not due as a result of the interests of
the Leventhals.
This Appeal is based, inter alia, upon the following:
(1) That we contend there has been a failure of the
Application to be proffered, presented and pursued before
the City of Miami, by and through its Zoning Board or
otherwise, by any legally authorized and proper
representative with authority to act on behalf of the
interest represented by the undersigned and therefore the
Property.
(2) That we contend the Application has been derived
through a process inconsistent with the laws of, inter
alia, the State of Florida.
(3) That we contend the variance sought results in a
diminution in value of the Property in that it
contemplates a demolition of an existing physical
structure (the building on the property estimated to be
in excess of Twenty Five Thousand (25,000) square feet).
(4) That we contend, the granting of the special
exception and variance and resulting demolition adversely
impacts upon the interest represented by the undersigned;
the undersigned assert they represent, the sole (known to
the undersigned) creditors of the Property based on the
assertion of dissenters, rights under Florida Law if the
entity is a valid corporation -- further, if dissenters,
rights were not available for the opponents of an
election to destroy the building and lease a parking lot,
then the proponents before the City are taking actions
which fly in the face of the documents they have
submitted to the City; if Erie is not a valid
corporation, then all equity holders must actually
execute the Application, which they have not.
(5) That we contend the requirement imposed by the
Zoning Board on February 22, 1999 of a hold -harmless
agreement is non-specific; the Record of that decision
does not delineate as part of the Record that a
"circuitous" indemnity not be permitted to be delivered
by the Erie entity (which we challenge) as compared to
the individuals who comprise the proponents of the
special exception in their individual capacities, in a
sum sufficient to protect the interests represented by
SJ` JG8
%-
FERNANDEZ
March 8, 1999
Page Three
the City and therefore the undersigned; the hold -harmless
agreement should also be in a form fully assignable "at
the sole and exclusive discretion of the City of Miami,"
should such an assignment be desirable in order to avoid
any further involvement by the City of Miami in this
matter.
(6) That we contend there has been by the Miami Zoning
Board unequal treatment, by having given possible greater
weight or credibility to the statements made by counsel,
Richard Ivans, when Ivans was expressly permitted not to
take an oath requiring him to make all statements in an
absolute and truthful manner under penalty of perjury;
this unequal treatment, due to Ivans being an attorney
and a resident of the State of Florida, impacts the
rights of the Appellants to procedural due process, in
that the rules of evidence were construed procedurally
unconstitutionally. Additionally, this unequal treatment
impacted the rights of the Appellants to substantive due
process and equal protection and violated the privileges
and immunities clause. See Fourteenth Amendment, United
States Constitution.
(7) That we contend statements made by Ivans, taken as
being under oath or being deemed truthful by the Zoning
Board were in fact either defamatory, misleading or
designed to be misleading; that we contend that the facts
to be proffered by this (evidentiary) appeal will reflect
that Ivans omitted to tell and disclose certain facts
which, had such facts been disclosed, would have caused
statements he made, otherwise not misleading; this is
together with a methodology by Ivans, we contend, of
imparting false inferences to the Zoning Board to result
in an inappropriate decision with the false inferences
including but not limited to the statement by Ivans that
the signature by Dorothy Leventhal (as secretary) on a
certain lease document purportedly between the entity
known as Erie and the purported lessee -applicant, Centre
City Parking through Mr. Lee Schwartz, was a "clean"
delivery of same, when in fact it was conditioned on
conditions which were unfulfilled, causing the half-truth
statement by Ivans before the Zoning Board to be false
and known to be false and fraudulent by Ivans.
(8) That we contend Ivans' statement to the effect that
each family had its Ronald Leventhal to bear was known by
Ivans to be defamatory, misleading and designed to impart
to the Zoning Board an inference that it was the
09- t 0
rA
FERNANDEZ
March 8, 1999
Page Four
Leventhals who were incorrect in the positions asserted,
both between the various parties in the dispute over the
Property, as well as the issues at that time before the
Zoning Board; in fact, we contend, the absolute,
unequivocal, unrefutable contrary is true: Ivans is and
remains a main problem in this matter, due to what we
contend are the serious frauds, outright lies and false
inferences perpetrated by Ivans in this matter, together
with conflicts of interests and other improprieties; we
contend that Ivans and others participated and acted in
illegal concert to deprive the Leventhals of certain of
their rights under the Constitutions of Florida, Georgia
and the United States, including the rights to due
process, notice, and certain rights with respect to
interests in property, and that the inferences regarding
Ronald S. Leventhal and direct inflammatory statements
made by Ivans regarding Ronald S. Leventhal are an
attempt by Ivans and those acting in concert with him to
maneuver the Zoning Board and others around the issues
and misdirect actions accordingly.
(9) That in general, the Appellants hereby respectfully
object to any change in the status of the zoning
ordinance and any variance thereof, as is presently
affixed to the subject Property.
(10) That the Appellants further respectfully object to
any actions by any governmental authority, including but
not limited to the City of Miami and their
representatives, individually and in their official
capacities, to in any way further the alleged improper
and illegal conduct of the zoning Applicants) and those
participating and acting in concert with and otherwise
representing the Applicant(s), as an infringement upon
their Property rights as are set forth under the United
States Constitution, the Georgia Constitution and the
Florida Constitution.
(11) That the Appellants respectfully submit that the
zoning ordinance and laws of the City of Miami and the
State of Florida, as written, are unconstitutional as
applied, to the extent that they would purport to
authorize the City of Miami, acting through the Zoning
Board and the City Council, to accept at face value the
authority of those who presently purport to represent the
interests of the Property owners of the Erie Property,
based upon the fact that such has clearly been refuted by
the Appellants and has at best been supported only in a
hollow manner by the proponents of the Application.
009—
{
..
n
FERNANDEZ
March 8, 1999
Page Five
(12) That the Appellants respectfully deem the process to
grant a variance for the purpose of the demolition of the
sole asset erected on the subject Property to be, in
light of the financial damage that would be caused to the
Appellants, an unconstitutional deprivation of property
rights, not supported by any ordinance, statute or
regulation which would in any way permit such to be
effectuated by any official in any official capacity on
behalf of the City of Miami, or otherwise.
(13) That the Appellants respectfully object to any
decision to proceed with the Application in any manner as
being arbitrary and capricious, favoring unsubstantiated
authority, particularly in the face of the rebuttal and
statements as to the lack of such authority by any
proponents to proceed.
(14) That the Appellants respectfully request that a
complete Record of these proceedings be made for further,
if necessary, judicial review and that full disclosure be
made by each of the proponents of the Application, as is
required by law, as to financial and other matters that
affect the within pending matter.
(15) The Appellants respectfully object to any person
appearing before the City Council in these proceedings
without all statements made being under oath and under
penalty of perjury.
(16) That the Appellants appeal to the Mayor and the City
Council on such other and further grounds as may be
presented by the undersigned, including but not limited
to the procedural constitutional and substantive rights
evolving out of the interest represented herein and the
preservation of the structure on the Property and its
affect on the citizens and property owners of Miami or
any of them.
Enclosure: (1) Check
c:\rs1\appeal.not
Very truly yours,
R " o y ald S . Levent al
Dor th "Le thal
t
9 208
r
L
A
t-I
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCTV
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE STATE OF FLORIDA
BY AND THROUGH THE OFFICE OF HEARING BOARDS
SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM:
DECISION ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT (8)
BY THE CITY OF MIAMI ZONING BOARD
ON FEBRUARY, 22, 1999 - - -
SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION
NUMBER 1998-0183/151
-----------------------------------
March 25, 1999
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BY:
RONALD S. LEVENTHAL
DOROTHY A. LEVENTHAL
353 Woodlawn Drive
Marietta, Georgia 30067
Telephone: (770) 565-7757
Telecopier: (770) 578-6514
S 9 - !D V
(
Ronald S. Leventhal
Dorothy A. Leventhal
353 Woodlawn Drive
k Marietta, Georgia 30067 —
1 Telephone: (770) 565.7757
Facsimile: (770) 578-6514
March 25, 1999
Original Via Certified
united States Mail =_
Ret./Rec./Req.
Z 315 075 575
And a Copy Via Telecopier
To (305) 416-2035
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez, RA, AICP
Chief, Office of Hearing Boards
City of Miami
444 S.W. Second Avenue, 7th Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL From:
.Decision On:
_ Special Exception Application #1998-0183
151 N.E. First Street, Miami, Florida, heard before
The City of Miami Zoning Board on
February 22 1999 Item Number 8
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
Please be advised that the undersigned, Ronald S. Leventhal
and Dorothy A. Leventhal (the "Leventhals" or "Appellants"), as to
the interest we represent in the property located at 151 N.E. First
Street, Miami, Florida (the "Property"), hereby supplement our
timely appeal of March 8, 1999, docketed on March 9, 1999, to the
Mayor and the City Council of the City of Miami from the decision
of the City of Miami Zoning Board with respect to the decision by
that Board on February 22, 1999, on Agenda Item Number 8, in
connection with Application Number 1998-0183. This document serves
as the SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL ("SUPPLEMENT"). We are
herein addressing and specifying the basis for the last error that
we charged, in Paragraph 16, wherein we stated "on such other and
further grounds." The supplement to Paragraph 16 is as follows:
f
- 3
_ 4
;1
- i
�V�
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Two
(16) That a review of the transcript of the proceedings held
before the City of Miami Zoning Board at its bi-monthly on February
22, 1999 (the "ZONING TRANSCRIPT"), manifests several issues which
require review by the City Council of Miami, both as to legality
and propriety, as such affected the Zoning Board's decision:
(a) That at Page 9 of the ZONING TRANSCRIPT, Assistant
City Attorney Trehy stated that: "I suggested that at a
minimum we get a release and hold harmless from this
corporation. You may want to seek additional protection."
(b) That continuing, on Page 9 of the ZONING TRANSCRIPT,
Ms. Trehy stated: "I can advise you that legally, as you
know, under the corporation statutes and Florida
statutes, the President and Vice -President do have
apparent authority to sign, but we have put on notice,
late, eleventh hour as it is, that there may be some
concerns with the authorization for this Application."
(c) That notably, in response to the concerns raised by
Ms. Treyhy, Mr. Richard Ivans was not under oath, as Ms.
Treyhy stated at Page 11: "Well, fortunately, we don't
swear them (attorneys) in and second we lost the person
to swear people in;" referring to Mr. Ivans, attorney at
law, she was correct in the sense that it was fortunate
for Mr. Ivans that he was not placed under oath, as that
would have assisted, we contend, in a possible perjury
charge, perhaps if not by the City prosecutors, the
district attorney or other governmental agency. However,
The Board is required to take testimony under oath. City
of Miami Code, Article X, Sec. 2-816. See also City of
Miami Code, Article X, Section 815(d) requiring that "all
testimony shall be under oath . . . Of course, other
evidence (such as documents, including letters) are
admissible and must be considered by the Board pursuant
to, among other things, Article 16, Sec. 1604. This is
necessary, it would seem, so that the Board can meet its
requirements, requirements that the Board failed to meet
because it failed to, inter alia, making findings of
fact.
(d) That, by way of partial background, a meeting was
held by the representatives of the equity holders of
Erie, on April 16, 1995 to properly document the
continuing existence of Erie in terms of maintaining its
corporateness, as is set forth in numerous cases
promulgated under the Florida statutes, which address the
99- 13C8
V
K•
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Three
issues of corporate formalities, fraud upon the public,
the basis upon which creditors may pierce the corporate
veil and the bases for which a corporation would lose its
corporateness or its right to function as a corporation.
(e) That the minutes of that 1995 meeting to cure
matters were never signed, and the election of any
officers emanating from that meeting were never ratified
and subsequently approved in writing, consistent with
Florida statute -- unless something has been done
clandestinely, not otherwise known to the Leventhals.
(f) That Dorothy Leventhal is secretary of the Erie
entity and has been since the late 1980's, if Erie
maintains its corporateness; Sophie Gilbert is President
and Janet Weinstein is Vice President.
(g) That Ronald S. Leventhal holds a contractual
interest to a percentage undivided interest of the rights
of Dorothy A. Leventhal since September 9, 1998, and
having held, at prior times when Erie was validly
operating as a corporation before it lost its
corporateness, the proxy rights to vote all of the
interests of Dorothy Leventhal.
(h) That without counsel, and without any notice to the
Leventhals, the remaining equity holders of Erie
actually signed a listing agreement, we contend, in a
clandestine and fraudulent manner, acting ultra wires the
Erie entity if in fact it was a corporation (maintained
its corporateness), in early 1997.
(i) That in March 1998 there was a legitimate agreement
to sign a listing agreement with Cushman & Wakefield
through Mr. Mark Gilbert, the son of Dr. Arthur Gilbert,
a broker with Cushman & Wakefield in Miami.
(j) That the signing of the listing agreement with
Cushman & Wakefield manifestly states on its face that it
is being signed by Dorothy Leventhal, not in support of
the proposition that Erie is a corporation, but that her
signature for her own direct interest in the property, as
to Twenty Five Percent (250), such being known to the
remaining holders who contended they signed for the
entity.
(k) That nevertheless the listing went forward with an
agreed upon sale price for the property.
a
.t..
s
It,.
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Four
(1) That shortly thereafter, Mark Gilbert contacted
Ronald Leventhal in 1998 and stated that he had
resurrected prior negotiations from 1996 with his friend,
Michael "Mickey" Meyer of Centre City Parking.
(m) That the Leventhals had serious concerns about any
proceedings with Centre City in 1998 due in part to the
information proffered by agents of Central Parking
Company who were viewing the property, in late 1996-early
1997, that the site did not effectively economically work
for a parking lot on a long-term basis with a significant
up front commitment, absent using the creative elevator
systems that Centre City is bent on using, and that the
use of such was highly questionable.
(n) That nevertheless, in the summer of 1998,
negotiations proceeded through Richard Ivans with the
Leventhals, substantively negotiating on an arrangement
with Centre City, trying to determine if, inter alia,
appropriate protection could be afforded for those who
would use the parking lot as such would affect the owners
of the property as the equity holders.
(o) That this procedure was based upon the premise that
the Leventhals had no choice but to accede to the
demolition of the building that they wished to see
preserved, for which they had offered $500, 00.00 to fund,
on an arms length basis, and that the Leventhals, not
attorneys, while they are competent to represent their
interests, were at the time not as familiar with Florida
law as they are today, and still learning.
(p) That in the 1998 process of seeking to negotiate the
arrangements with Centre City, Leventhal received what he
contends was a "strange" call from Mark Gilbert,
requesting that an up front commission, based upon a
twenty (20) year lease arrangement be advanced by the
equity holders.
(q) That Ronald Leventhal analyzed the calculations
based on the proposal, noting that first, in his view,
commissions are not payable up front and that even if
they were, on a 20 year basis, such a significant amount
of funds being advanced in commissions would represent a
substantial portion or more than half the amount that the
Leventhals and all equity holders were insisting be
escrowed by Centre City in order for the lease to be
signed.
SQ9-. CGS
t,
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Five
(r) That the Leventhals immediately passed on their
concerns with respect to that coincidence in the numbers
to other equity holders in Erie.
(s) That several efforts were made to finalize the lease
document and on a Thursday, July 8, 1998, via Federal
Express, a signed lease was received at the residence of
the Leventhals in Atlanta from the offices of Mark
Gilbert in Miami, containing a lease document signed by
Centre City and by the President of Erie, Sophie Gilbert.
(t) That the document required the signature of Dorothy
Leventhal, secretary.
(u) That with respect to the lease document received,
the signature of Sophie Gilbert was an extremely close
copy, but in fact was a forgery.
(v) That a handwriting analysis expert concluded that
the witness to the forgery was female but that the
forgery may have been carried out by a male individual.
(w) That being the forged document was forwarded by Mark
Gilbert, the Leventhals asserted their view that he had
forged his Grandmother's signature and someone at the
offices of Cushman & Wakefield in fact may have witnessed
the forgery.
(x) That the Leventhals reported this matter to the
remaining equity holders of Erie, who represent the
interests of some of the minority owners, and who
purportedly constitute the Board of Directors.
(y) That it was immediately confirmed, that Sophie
Gilbert neither signed the lease nor authorized (nor
could she as a matter of corporate law) her signature on
the document, via telephone conversation with Mr. Ronald
Deblinger, Ms. Janet Weinstein and the Leventhals --
Deblinger contacted Mrs. Gilbert while the remaining
parties were on hold.
(z) That the Leventhals nevertheless voted to proceed
with the lease arrangement telephonically at a meeting
involving, among others, Richard Ivans and Dr. Gilbert:
in that meeting on July 29, 1998, the Leventhals made
clear that they would not proceed with a final signing of
a legitimately prepared lease document with Centre City
absent some arrangement to (1) reinstate the
corporateness of Erie or to confirm that it is not a
corporation and to not remain in a dispute with respect
SJ- "G8
r
I
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 199:9
Page Six
to its integrity, which arrangement had to (2) provide
protection against Mark Gilbert ever becoming involved in
Erie and (3) that damages be assessed against Cushman &
Wakefield who, to date, still has not, to the knowledge
of the Leventhals, terminated the relationship with a
person who commits forgery and then forwards the document
through the equivalent of the U.S, mail, to fraudulently
induce another to execute same, Mark Gilbert, and (4)
that there be protection with respect to the flow of
funds so that the funds cannot be impeded by any other
persons as to the Twenty Five Percent (25%) equity
interest of the Leventhals, thereby enhancing the eighty
(800) percent rule set forth in the original articles of
incorporation.
(aa) That the Leventhals, notwithstanding having sent a
letter to Richard Ivans and the purported Board of
Directors the day of the July 29, 1998 meeting, via
telecopier, and notwithstanding that Mr. Ivans stated he
"noted" the requirements of the Leventhals as part of the
record of the meeting to authorize the lease, which is
the premise upon which the Application is proffered to
the City of Miami, we contend Mr. Ivans appropriated the
signature of Dorothy Leventhal on the lease document
under intentional and false pretenses and did not state
to attorney Jay Schwartz, the attorney for Centre City,
the facts regarding the conditions governing the
signature of Dorothy Leventhal on the lease document.
(bb) That the lease document required notice to Dorothy
Leventhal, specifically, of all significant events and
that not one notice has been forwarded to Dorothy
Leventhal by Centre City, therefore constituting multiple
events of default on the lease.
(cc) That at no time prior to the July 29, 1998 meeting
and the meeting on November 8, 1998 to authorize Lee
Schwartz of Centre City to proceed with the Application
before the City of Miami, were the Leventhals or any of
the other equity holders of Erie, who may not have
desired to risk remaining involved, given notice of their
right to be bought out in accordance with Florida's
dissenters' statute.
(dd) That the failure to have given notice by Mr. Ivans,
purportedly acting for the purported company and of the
remainder of the purported Board of Directors, seeking to
significantly alter and modify the property by the
demolition of its sole structure, constitutes a clear
0r VC
AL
UL
{
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Seven
unauthorized departure from the required statutes of
Florida in obtaining the Board authorization for the
lease and the signature of Lee Schwartz to be legitimate
and proper on the Application to the City of Miami. See
South End Improvement Group, Inc. v. Mulliken, 602 So. 2d
1327 (1992) (which while a derivative action matter,
addresses the important issue that the requirement that
a shareholder notice and consent requirement be given
thereby triggering dissenters' rights, that "a
disposition of corporate assets may be considered
`substantially all' if either its quantitative or
qualitative impact, or both, would fundamentally change
nature of corporation").
(ee) That while in the South End matter the disposition
of land as a contribution represented Ninety -Eight
Percent (980) of the disposition of its assets, thereby
bringing into play the dissenters' right statute on a
mandatory basis, in the Erie matter, the demolition of
its sole building, the source of its revenue and an
enhancement to the property (had it been property
maintained by the equity holders as the Leventhals urged
repeatedly, and as it still could be and should be to
provide facilities for the citizens of Miami, within
walking distance to a metro railway system), clearly
constitutes a quantitative impact and, even if that were
even remotely offset by paving the property (which in
light, inter alia, of the nature of the lifting systems
risks it is not), a qualitative impact that would
fundamentally change the nature of the Erie property.
Id. at 1331-32.
(ff) That notably, South End cites to, among other cases,
a matter where the physical plant, similar to the Erie
building, constituting over Fifty -One Percent (5101) of
the corporate assets and generating less than Fifty
Percent (500) of its sales, was a disposition of
"substantially all" of its assets.
(gg) That in this matter, taking the easy way out after
inheriting property in good standing and in good repair,
the majority of the equity holders would prefer to see
the sole source of revenue demolished rather than
maintained and revived.
(hh) That while that may be within their purview, Florida
statutes require that no Board authorization used as a
basis to apply to the City of Miami for any special
exception Application is legal, absent the Leventhals,
�00
i
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Eight
and anyone else who is an equity holder, in a similar
circumstance, who would prefer not to go along with such,
being offered, in writing, dissenters' rights by statute.
(ii) That the Leventhals, beginning in the late Fall of
1998, were in contact with the City of Miami by and
through its Board of Hearings Office to frequently check
into whether or not any purported Application had been
submitted.
(jj) That the failure to obtain a proper Board
authorization for the Application to be presented to the
Zoning Board was an issue raised by the Leventhals prior
to the time the Application was submitted.
(kk) That the Leventhals have repeatedly made clear their
contention that the Application is void ab ini tio, and is
not obtained in accordance with Florida statute, and
therefore any resulting activities, including the vote by
the Zoning Board, even if it were correct substantively
and procedurally (which it is not) , within the parameters
of "discretion" and not otherwise arbitrary and
capricious, are a nullity.
(11) That the Leventhals have made clear their contention
that the participation of the City of Miami in this
matter is essential and fundamental to what the
Leventhals contend is illegal ultra vires conduct by
certain of the equity holders who the Leventhals contend
are acting in concert with one another and perhaps with
third parties to obtain the requisite special exception
in order to then, economically and feasibly in the view
of Centre City, demolish the sole erected aoset on the
property, and that as was discussed in the ZONING
TRANSCRIPT, there is no present economic viability of the
property, standing alone as a parking lot, absent the use
of the lifting system for cars. See ZONING TRANSCRIPT,
PP. 3-4.
(mm) That on November 5, 1998, an Affidavit was executed
by Lee Schwartz of Centre City Parking, stating that he
was the legal representative of the owner of. the Erie
property, authorized to proceed with the special
exception Application.
(nn) That the special exception Application was executed
on November 5, 1998.
��Q9- *'0
fA
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Nine
(oo) That notably, on November 8, 1998, Minutes of a
meeting of the purported Board of Directors of Erie took
place, stating solely that Lee Schwartz was authorized
"to continue" to proceed with the special exception
Application.
(pp) That nowhere are there any Minutes which reflect
that Lee Schwartz was, prior to November 8, 1998, with
any specificity whatsoever, allowed to serve as the legal
representative to the purported Erie entity.
(qq) That Lee Schwartz is not, to the knowledge of the
Leventhals, an attorney at law, nor is he listed with the
Secretary of State of Florida or elsewhere as the
President or Vice President of Erie, if Erie is a
corporation.
(rr) That therefore any reliance by the City of Miami on
Florida statutes respecting the apparent authority of
corporations to proceed with such Applications, is
clearly misplaced for all of the reasons set forth supra
and further because neither the President nor Vice
President of the purported corporate entity signed the
special exception Application.
(ss) That further, with respect to the statements by Mr.
Ivans to the Zoning Board that Ronald S . Leventhal has no
standing, Ronald Leventhal, as is set forth supra in
September 1998, rather than merely indemnifying Dorothy
Leventhal, which under Georgia law would otherwise give
him standing to be vouched into any proceeding, is the
assignee of an undivided interest of Dorothy Leventhal's
rights in and to the property whatever form the entity
may be, which under Florida law, that constitutes
standing. See Equity Resources Inc. v. County of Leon,
643 So.2d 1112, 1117 (1994).
(tt) That moreover, Mr. Ivans, to the extent that at Page
13 of the ZONING TRANSCRIPT he indicated that the
Leventhals had no standing or were not citizens or tax
payers in Miami, Florida, misstated the truth, since
Dorothy Leventhal, per se, owns a Fifty Percent (5001)
undivided interest in a tract of property within the City
of Miami paying real estate taxes of approximately Thirty
Six Thousand ($36,000.00) per year as well as an
ownership interest through a corporate entity in another
tract of real property in Miami, Florida, paying
additional taxes annually; clearly, notwithstanding the
fact that Dorothy Leventhal is a bona fide tax payer,
individually, in the City of Miami of reasonable consequence,
09 _
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Ten
the Leventhals are unaware of any view between the states
of Florida and Georgia that abrogate not only comity in
the court system, but respect for the rights and property
interests held in each state by citizens of the other
state.
(uu) That the City Council, with respect, even if for any
reason it views the record of the zoning hearing to be
otherwise proper, not warranting an appeal -- with which
the Leventhals would respectfully disagree, as a matter
of fundamental and procedural and substantive due process
-- that the issue must be addressed by the City Council
as to the propriety of the acceptance of the Application
in the first instance.
(vv) That until final action is taken on the Zoning
Board's decision, the matter of the Application being
defective and, as the Leventhals contend, fraudulently
proffered, remains within the breast and purview of the
City of Miami and its Mayor and Council, and that we
believe the City is a citizen for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction. See Moor v. Almeda County, 411 U.S. 693,
93 S.Ct. 1785 (1973) (holding that a county was a citizen
for purposes of diversity jurisdiction). Further, under,
inter alia, Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz, 471
U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (1985, parties can create
jurisdiction and become subject to the regulations and
sanctions of another state for the consequences of their
actions within (or aimed at) citizens of another state.
See Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 102 S.Ct. 2309 (1982)
(emphasizing that when a state distributes benefits
unequally (based on the discussion of non -residency at
the Zoning Hearing] , such are scrutinized under the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; the United
States Constitution protects persons against barriers to
interstate movement and noting that citizens of one state
are protected by the unconstitutional actions of another
state under the privileges and immunities clause). See
also Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Commission, 429
U.S. 318, 97 S.Ct. 599 (1977) (holding that no state may,
consistent with the commerce clause, discriminate against
interstate commerce by providing an advantage to local
business or imposing a greater burden on out -of -staters).
Also see Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 95 S.Ct.
1191 (1975) and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v.
Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 105 S.Ct. 1676 (1985). Also see
Braddy v. Florida Department of Labor and Employment
Security, 133 F.3d 797 (llth Cir. 1998).
Sy- �08
,..
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Eleven
(ww) That we respectfully submit allowing this matter to
proceed, absent which there is no viability for the
demolition of the building, is inconsistent with the
immunities afforded the City of Miami and its agents, the
reason being that while generally a city may rely upon a
proper interpretation of statute and when doing so in
good faith may be immune from liability, that clearly the
record before the City, as has been stated since the
beginning to the Office of Hearings Boards, that other
Florida statutes have been violated in order to obtain
the purported requisite authority for this matter to
proceed with the City of Miami being on notice, that the
City and its Mayor and Council may not be immune to in
any way act with or for or to assist in any way even
indirectly any action which would support the demolition
of the sole asset on this property, depriving the
Leventhals of property rights.
(xx) That if for any reason, the City of Miami believes
the appeal in this matter is not of a zoning appeal
nature but of an appeal of the Application being
considered, which is a distinction without a difference,
then that issue at a minimum should be heard on the
appeal of this matter on April 27, 1999.
(yy) That the Zoning Board, while requiring an
indemnification, was non-specific as to its contents and
details.
(zz) That the Leventhals submit that Erie is not in the
indemnification business and that such document would
flow in violation of dissenters' rights which must again
be afforded before any valid authority is givan for the
indemnification flowing out of the same nucleus of facts
and circumstances to proceed due to the exposure to Erie,
whatever its status.
(aaa) That the Leventhals object to the delivery of any
hold harmless agreement or the acceptance by same as is
now required by the Zoning Board, unless it is in true
and proper form to protect the citizens of Miami to the
utmost and that it comes from individuals of substantial
independent net worth, separate from the property at
issue in these proceedings.
s
e7J_ J��
Ms. Teresita L. Fernandez
March 25, 1999
Page Twelve
(bbb) That to the extent any matter proceeds, in favor of C
the applicant, on any basis, the Leventhals respectfully
insist upon a right of appeal or other administrative -
hearings to address these issues, either before the City
Council, a panel, board or otherwise, consistent with
which the Leventhals reserve any and all rights they have
both in law and in equity, against, with great
reluctance, against the City of Miami and'its officials
in their official and individual capacities.
(ccc) That the right of the Leventhals to assert their =
interests to protect their property rights herein are -
properly consistent with their assertions of fraud and
cumulatively with their exercise of dissenters' rights,
not acknowledged by Mr. Ivans and the ultra wires group
purportedly operating the Erie Property.
See Fla. Stat. § 607.1302(5).
(ddd) That most troublesome are Chairman's Barquett's
statements, at Page 17, of the transcript, to his
seemingly friend, Lee Schwartz, that: "Lee, is there -
anything else you want to say in closing? He took the
ball and ran with it. Now, don't you fumble on the goal
line . . . Lee, you did a good job."
Very tr�u�lyj yours,
%
R. ald S. Leventhal
Dorothy Leve thal
c:\erie\appea12.not
0 9 tJ lJ
Miami Zoning Board
Resolution: ZB 1999-0150
Monday, February 22,1999
Ms Gloria M. Basila - offered the following Resolution and move
its adoption
Resolution:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1305 OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000,
THE ZONING BOARD GRANTED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO.
11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION
401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO PERMIT A PARKING LOT IN THE CBD
CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY
151 NE 1ST STREET LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS SEVENTEEN (17) AND EIGHTEEN (18) OF
BLOCK ONE HUNDRED FOUR (104) NORTH OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, PLAT BOOK "B", PAGE 41,
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION
WAS GRANTED PER PLANS ON FILE WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH
A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BY THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1) A NEW SITE PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED WHICH MODIFIES THE
LAYOUT SO AS TO LOCATE ONE OF THE THREE HANDICAPPED SPACES ALONG THE EAST
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE OTHER TWO ALONG THE WEST SIDE; AND 2) A NEW
LANDSCAPE PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL WHICH INCREASES
THE AMOUNT AND SIZES OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS - PARTICULARLY
ALONG NE 1ST STREET AND THE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Humberto J. Pellon,
the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
Mr. George Barket
Ms. Gloria M. Basila
Mr. Charles J. Flowers
Ms. Ileana Hemandez-Acosta
Mr. Humberto J. Pellon
Mr. Fidel A. Perez
Mr. Juvenal Pina
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 5-1
Yes
Yes
Away
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
AYE:
5
NAY:
1
ABSTENTIONS:
0
NO VOTES:
0
ABSENTS:
1
Case No.: 1998=0183 Item Nbr: 5
9 9 - "d8
Miami Zoning Board
Resolution: ZB 1999-0150
Monday, February 22,1999
Case No.: 1998-0183
4.-
0
Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief
Office of Hearing Boards
Item Nbr: g
S9- 308
ZONING BOARD ACTION 1 _ _ . SPECIAL EXCEPTION
1 move that the request on Agenda Item k ?' be (DENIED)
Qthat the requirements of Article 16 (WERE) (WERE
N sans ed by relevant evidence in the mold of the public hearing.
V(a) as stated in the City's-5ndirigs of fur, or
L . (b) as demonstrated by the petitioner, or
(c) on the basis of the following:
The Zoning Board, in its decision to (GRANT) (DENY) the special
exception, shall make written find:ags that the applicable requirements of
this Zoning Ordinance, Section 2305, (HAVE) (HAVE NOT) been met
(CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS)
1305.1 Ingress and Egress.
.Due consideration shall be given to adequacy of ingress and egress to
the property and strucntre and uses thereon, with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control, and access in case of fire and emergency.
13052 OfEstreet Parking and Loading.
Due consideration shall be given to offsttreet parking and loading
facilities as related to adjacent streets, with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience , internal traffic flow
and control, arrangement in relation to access in can of fire or other
emergency, and screening and landscaping.
13053 Refuse and Service Areas.
Due consideration shall be given to the location, sane, design, and
screening of refire and service area to the manner in which refuse is to
be stored. and to the man act and timing of refuse collection and deliveries,
shipments, or other service activities, as such matters relate to the location
and nature of uses on adjoining properties and to the location and
character of adjoining public ways
1305:4 i gad Li h '
Due consideration shall be given to the umber, size, character,
location, and orientation of proposed signs, and of proposed lighting for
signs and premises, with particular reference to traffic safety, glare, and
compatibility and harmony with adjoining and nearby property and the
character of the area
19
1305.5 Utilities.
Due srderation shall be given to utilities required, with particular
`esferenoe to availability and capacity of systems, location of connections,
and potentially adverse appearance or other adverse effects on adjoining
and nearby property and the character of the area
1305.6 Drainage-
Due consideration shall be given for drainage, with particular referent
to effect on adjoining and nearby properties and on general drainage
systems in the area. Where major drainage volumes appear likely and
capacity of available systems is Rmnd marginal or inadequate,
consideration shall be given to possibilities for recharge of groundwater
supply on the property, temporary retention with gradual discharge, or
other remedial measures.
1305.7 Preservation of Natural Features.
Due consideration shall be given to provision for the preservation of
existing vegetation and geological features whenever possible.
1305.9 Control of Potentially Adverse Effects Generally.
In addition to consideration of detailed elements indicated above, as
appropriate to the particular class or kind of special permit and the
circumstances of the particular case, due consideration shall be given to
potentially adverse PEE av generally on adjoining and nearby properties,
the area, the neighborhood, or the City, of use or occupancy as proposed,
or its location, construction, design. character, scale or manner of
operation. Where such potentially adverse effects are found,
consideration shall be given to special remedial measures appropriate in
the particular circumstances of the case, including screening or buffering.
landscaping, control of manner or hours of operation, alteration of use of
such space, or such other measures as are required to assure that such
potential adverse effects will be eliminated or minimized to the maximum
extent reasonably feasible, and that the use of occupancy will be
compatible and harmonious with other development m the area to a
degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of the value of nearby
property —
Sigunue
i 4. E
Agenda Item
;) - as- 1117
Sy- 6®8
71,
WE -SS SEROTA HELFMAN
PASTORIZA & GUELIES, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
266S SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE 99 APR
1 l r C7 All 8: K
SUITE 420 MI `\
LILLIAN ARANGO DE LA HOZ' BROWARD OFFICE
PATRICIA M. BALOYRA MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 1132 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE
MITCHELL A. BIERMAN
NINA L. BONISKE
ELAINE M. COHEN
JAMIE ALAN COLE
DANIEL H.COULTOFF
MICHELLE M. GALLARDO
JENNIFER GOMBERG
DOUGLAS R. GONZALES
EDWARD G. GUEDES
STEPHEN J. HELFMAN
JOHN R. MERIN. JR.
ROBERT W. HOLLAND*
JILL A. JARKESY'
CHRISTOPHER F. KURTZ
GILBERTO PASTORIZA
NANCY RUSIN'
GAIL D. SEROTA'
JOSEPH H. SEROTA
JEFFREY P. SHEFFEL
DANIEL A. WEISS'
RICHARD JAY WEISS
DAVID M. WOLPIN
STEVEN W. ZELKOWITZ
VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL
Ms. Teresita Fernandez
Hearing Boards
City of Miami
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 8th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
TELEPHONE (305) 854-0800
TELECOPIER (305) 854-2323
WWW.WSH-FLALAW.COM
Re: Legal Representation
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
April 1-, 1999
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33316
TELEPHONE (9S4) 763-4242
TELECOPIER (9S4) 764-7770
PALM BEACH OFFICE
1872 SOUTHWEST 17TH STREET
BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33486
TELEPHONE (561) 392-8762
TELECOPIER (561) 392-7551
'OF COUNSEL
Pursuant to our telephone conversation, please be advised that the undersigned will be
representing Erie Corporation in the appeal filed by Ronald S. Leventhal and Dorothy A. Leventhal
of the decision of the City of Miami Zoning Board granting various approvals to the property
located at 151 N.E. 1st Street Miami. Florida. I have PrclnsPC1 a cnnx.. of the lnnhvirt re"isra+ion
r J J b
form.
me.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions, please call
Very truly yours,
Stephen J. Helfman
SJH/ms
510001
Enclosure
CITY OF MIAMI
OFFICE OF HEARING BOARDS
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
_lit11#ltiiilkkltki!lttk#tiiilkaiiiklillkillltikl#ilkiiiliili#ittlkillkiiliitdli!!tt#ltkktkkl#ttk
SECTION 2-653 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, GENERALLY REQUIRES
ANY PERSON WHO RECEIVES COMPENSATION, REMUNERATION OR EXPENSES FOR CONDUCTING
LOBBYING ACTIVITIES TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERIC, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN
LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. A
COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (MIAIWII CITY HALL),
_ LOCATED AT 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33133.
iikll!#ilk#ktk!#il#ilikilliikkiiikiiiiikflkktlriMiiiikikkiiildkiilliARliiill###i#!kk!lkkkttttilkt
NOTE: THIS APPLICATION MUST BE TYPEWRITTEN AND SIGNED IN BLACK INK,
Within the City generally, or within certain zoning districts, certain structures, uses, and/or occupancies
specified in this ordinance are of a nature requiring special and intensive review to determine whether
or not they should be permitted in specific locations, and if so, the special limitations, conditions, and
safeguards which should be applied as reasonably necessary promote the general purposes of this
ming Ordinance and, in particular, to protect adjoining properties and the neighborhood from
avoidable potentially adverse effects. It is further intended that the expertise and judgment of the
Zoning Board be exercised in making such determinations, in accordance -with the rules, considerations
and limitations relating to Special Exceptions (see Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Formal public notice and hearing is mandatory for Special Exceptions. The Zoning Board shall be
solely responsible for determinations on applications for Special Exceptions except when otherwise
provided for in the City Code. All applications shall be referred to the Director of the Department
Planning and Development for his recommendations and the Director shall make any further referrals
required by these regulations.
I, LQe S. Schwartz , hereby appl to the City of Miami Zoning Board for
approval of a Special Exception for the property located at ] b I N•E. First St., Miami, Fl.., 3;i 13Z
, folio number 01-0110-040-11' Nature of Proposed Use (please be
specific): Commercial parking lot,
In support of this application, the following material is submitted.
1. Two original surveys of the property prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor within one
year from the date of application.
2. Four copies -signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Architect or Engineer -of site plans showing
(as required) property boundaries, existing (if any) and proposed structure(s), parking, landscaping, etc.;
building elevations and dimensions and computations of lot area and building spacing.
s'L,,
K
3. Affidavits disclosing ownership of property covered by applications and disclosure of interest from (attaches.
to application).
_____ 4. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 375-foot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered
by the application.
5. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements).
6. Recorded warranty deed and tax forms for the most current year available that show the present owners) of
the property.
7. Other (Specify and attach cover letters explaining why any document you are attaching is pertinent to this
application).
8. Fee of $ to apply toward the cost of processing according to Section 62-156 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
SpecialException...............................................................................................$ 800.00
Special Exception requiring automatic city commission review.......................$2,000.00
Extensionof time for special exception......................................,......................$ 500.00
Public hearing mail notice fees, including cost of
handling and mailing per notice.........................................................................$ 3.50
Surcharge equal to applicable fee from item above, not to exceed eight hundred
dollars ($800.00) except from agencies of the city; such surcharge to be refunded
to the applicant if there is no appeal from a property owner within three hundred
and seventy-five (375) feet of the subject property.
Signature
Name I.eP S. Schwartz
Address __ 100 N. Biscayne Blvd. #1410
Miami, FL. ,33132
Telephone .305-577-0188
Date November 2, 1998
3
• r
�J �08
I
IW
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this F,Fr.t day of Ptw:w188;L
1991? , by jXS S4-NwAA-t who is persona own to me or who has
produced as identification and wh(rd id not) take an oath.
IRA86MA cANTALLOPS
MY 00"W'iss55
�• EExOe. Jan. z M Name: 17
+, °ondW by HAi Notary Public -State of Florida
+ N�° 800-422.I SW
Commission No.: i. c. -k ' � '-,' '�
My Commission Expires: , I , _ /� i •,
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-DARE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
19 , by partner (or agent) on behalf of
a partnership. He/She is personally known to me or who has
produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath.
Name: - ----
Notary Public -State of Florida
Commission No.:
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA .}
) SS
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADS )
Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared �„ £ £� eiw A,ETZ
who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says:
1. That he/she is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for
a public hearing as required by the Zoning Ordinance 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 and 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 descriptions 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 we
and correct.
Further Affiant sayeth not.
Appli=RsSign�=m
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIANfl-DARE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i day of
19 q'� , by of
Nye. She is rsonall kno me or has produced
and wh didJdid not) take an oath.
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
as identification
Name: -A—. ,(4 s �-- r-r\ri Q..a - +.1
Notary Public -State of Florida
Commission No.: C.(, `il ) --.,>Z.SS
My Commission Expires: t k m \G�1�
�•%' '&* iw►seti A cwvrALLLOPS
aP '� My 66
* * EmPhm Jan. 12. ton
BON by
t�
OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name F.RTF CORPORATION
Mailing Address 2699 S. Bayshore Drive 7th Floor Zip Code 33133
Telephone Number 205-856.2444
Legal Description: Lots 17 and 18, block 104, "City of Miami" according to the flat brook
B at page 41, of the Public records of Dade County, Florida. -
Owner's.Name
Mailing Address Zip Code
Telephone Number =_
Legal Description:
Iwner's Name
Mailing Address Zip Code ,
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
Street Address
Street Address
It.-
Legal Description
Legal Description
Legal Description
y- 608
DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSH]P
1. Legal description and street address of subject real property:
Lot 17 and 18, block 104, City of Miami, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat
Book "B" at Page 41,,of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
Address: 151 N.E. First Street, Miami, Florida, 33132
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, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses
and proportionate interest.
Owner of property: Erie Corporation - See attached Exhibit "1"
Mailing address: Erie Corporation, Attn: Mr. Richard /vans, P.A., 2699 S. Bayshore
Drive, 7th Floor, Miami, FL., 33133.
3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question 92, and
(b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property.
None
Owner or Attorney for Owner
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE
r
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �day of
19 Ck, by of
a corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
has produced
and wh6-did-oid not) take an
F�►"�����^
IRA�EIri/► CAMTAI.tppa
MY coJ"=& CCfaq
* �r
.. �a, toao
as identification
c-,
r. C' C, n Z--c*v4k7
Name: �.Sc%NN,-- Lvs-\'tcslkG?S.
Notary Public -State of Florida
Commission No.: C.. C 4b Ja 5.S
My Commission Expires: 1 i�l
J9— a
Jan-20-99 03:16P Katz"'*BarronwSquitero 94' 3483620 P.02
Exhibit 'T'
Based upon a review of the books and records of the Corporation, the Shareholders of Eric
Corporation and their respective interests are as follows:
Name
No. of Shares
Ownership Peroenkage
Dorothy Ann Leventhal
153.00
25%
Jean Deblinger
106.79
17.45%
Ronald Deblinger
23.105
3.775%
Adrienne Kristall
23.105
3.775%
Sophie Gilbert
106.79
17A5 %
Arthur Gilbert
23.105
3.775%
Yvonne Winig
23.105
3.775%
Janet R.Weinstein
153.00
25%
Totals:
612.00
100 %
0 9 - 308
t..
M
O
a
O
N
t0
M
Do
a
'M
ri
a
01
0
L.
ai
4J
0
Cr
N
C
0
L
ro
m
4J
ro
a>r
a
m
M
O
m
o�
0
N
l
C
ro
r)
irporate Inquiry Menu
,eIofI
Florida Division of
Corporate Inquiry Menu:
:Please select an inquiry type from the list below, then enter a
Corporations
rP
search key in the search field. Press SEARCH to begin the search.
Public Access
=
gnqulryby,
1/20/99 CORPORATE DETA:L RECORD SCREEN 3.09 PM
r corporation I Tmkmark Name
:NUM. 143561 ST:FL ACTIVE/F'L PROF:: FL:.:
12/21/1944
rOfterrReglebwedAQenlName
FEIV: 59-0607980
t^ Registered AgeniName
NAME : ERIE CORPORA=:ON
IPR:NCIPA_,: MIAMI BEACH F:..
CHANGED: 05/01/95
i%Trademark0anerName
ADDRESS -e—W
MIAMI BF—kCH, FL 33-54 US
r PEI Number
MAIL:NG 9601 COLL:NS AVE.
CHANGED: 05/01/95
r` Documeot
(ADDRESS 18 W
Number
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33154 US
r`TrukroarkName
1PA NAME SOPHIE GILBERT
1RA ADOR : 9e01 COLLINS AVE. APT. 16 W.
ADDR CHG: 05/21/75
iSearch String::
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33154
....................................................
ANN REP : ;i996j BN 04/04/96 ;1997) BN 03/03/97
(1998; BY 02/23/96
(icmepaae
,I
Off` -ere ----
T14:9 IS NOT OFFIC:AL RECORD; SEE DOCUM=NHS IF QUEST:ON OR CONFLICT —
http://ccfcorp.dos. state.fl. us/c&i-bin/corpweb. exe9radC orSearch=CORICHR&vlenu=COR&txtSearch String=143 561
1/20:99
O�
CJ�
NOV 11 '98 05:17PM AUDIOCOMM
CORPORATE REtOLUTIGN
P.2
I i
In accordance with Florida Statutes Section 607.0704, the undersit*lbed, being
the owners and holders of more than fifty-one percent (51 %) of the iF'ed and
outstanding shares -of capital stock of Erie Corporation, a Florida corpc1rti,tion (the
"Company"), hereby adopt the following corporate resolutions in lieu of hoiclor a formal
meeting of the shareholders of the Company: ' }i
RESOLVED, that Michael Meyers or Lee Schwartz, may eontin*00
to represent the Company before the Special Exception Hearing Boardl•:nf
the City of Miami in connection with the pending Special Exception
Hearing for that certain real property commonly known as 151 N.E. i; irst
Street, and in any proceedings ancillary thereto.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall remain in full foice
and effect and may be relied upon by the City of Miami until such time
as the City of Miami may receive notice from the Company that, this
Resolution has been rescinded.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned shareholders have duly e�$puted this
Corporate Resolution as of the 80' day of November, 1998.
Sh eholders:
) 7
PW Name:
�e of 4%a C./N
Print Name
Print Name:
Print Name
i
Print Name
H:1uB%D0C51050150011CRN ua091.wpD
1 ,
It. -
"NOV' 11 ' 98 * • 05: ! 7PM -AUDI OCOMM
CORPORATE RESOLUTION
P. 3
f
In accordance with Florida Statutes Section 607,0704, the undersigned, being ,
the owners and holders of more than fifty-one percent (51 %) of the .issued and
outstanding shares of capital stock of Erie Corporation, a Florida ,corppl a-.tlon (the
"Company'), hereby adopt the following corporate resolutions in lieu of holder a forma(
meeting of the shareholders of the 'Company:
RESOLVED, that Michael Mayers or Lee Schwartz, may continue
to represent the Company before the Special Exception Hearing Board of
the City of Miami in connection with the pending Special Exception
Hearing for that certain real property commonly -known as 151 N.E.-First
Street, and in any proceedings ancillary thereto.
FURTHER RESOLVER, that this Resolution shall remain in full force
and effect and may be relied upon by the City of Miami until such time
as the City of Miami may receive notice from the Company that,this
Resolution has been rescinded.
iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned shareholders have duly executed this
Corporate Resolution as of the 8'h day of November, 1998,
Shareh ers:
Print Name:
Print Name
Print Name:
Print Name
Print Name
H:1LIB160C;105o160otICRP19u809�.wPo
S 9 0
"y,r
NOV 11 '98 05:17PM AUDIOCOMM P.4
CORPORATE I1168OLUTION
In 110=e161`100 with Florida Stetutes Slogan $07.0704, the underaigned, being
the ownwo and holders of mom then fifty-one patent (51 %) of the lssuW end
outstanding shams of capital stock of Eris Corporation, a Florida, ccrpora�tion (the
v ompany' 1, hereby adopttho following corporate resolutions in lieu of holder a formal
meeting of the shareholders of the Company:
i SOLVED, that Michael Mayer; or Lac Schwartz, may continue
to noresornt the Company befofs the Special rowsiRtion HWIng Board of
the City of Miami in connection with the pending SpsclAl Excepddh
Hearino for that certain reel property cornmonly known as 151 Nx. Fiat
SUM, and in any proceedings ancillary thereto.
t:trMIER RESQLVW, thatthle Raselution shall ramaln in full force
and affect and may be relied upon by the City of Miami until such thus
as the Chy of Miami may reoolvo notice from ft Company that this
Resolution has been reaolnded.
r
1N W1TNE.SS WHEREOF, the undersigned shareholders have duly axe"' sd this
Corporate Resolution as of tho P day of November, 1998.
Print Narne
Print Name.
Print Name
Print Name
M;1Lii5D9CG1Q601i0D� tGAltiiYd00LtIRp
{j,
FC 017
SYSTEMS. IMC. - SOUTHEAST
6954 N.W. 12 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33126
305-477-9149 - 800-287-4799 - FAX 305-477-7526
condition
,,
WARRAMrr Do = ." eaw•.M•-
— V
► old 6 R it ►wa aawtar ar ►a..... tM�•.e.
1L�i5 +actdcn2ure. &fed. of peceater
a. D. 39 4S arrvrcN. -- ELISE T. JDiIN -and�-F•JP.F_y_G- SOBb he- nust:nd - -
xau at "i
wf U.e f,itiety of :114 ...i !,� "��d stele of Xi:eJn� n
of the revu Peru Ana FPTr c.1=P0B(•TTl71i - a terperetion
..i.,:np nwd•r it., t.%•. Of tl.t Of— rlorl G= � h..:we :10 rrrnt:p.l dace +(
6...A..r;n dv f."ttay wf. _ IL•ad State eC Fiari%.i
s. 4 la -full, atttherie..l to tran.aet hda:nn.c in the Stnto of Florida- Patty er the wceend rant
WrrNI %iTn: Thai tiro wid port. -ILL . or the fins pan, for and in .ww•'utr.wt:ea of L6 auon of
un
a�-
� • j w=!,..•-r to baml paid by tl.e ..id party of 11rc ►!-end Poet, the reae3pt whereof it lweby eekwer- }}
1• dv..I_ _i b •sated, bargained and .eirl to &See au:d party of the aeeettd pe,t.:t....eaaar.. awd
t e •
! rimy kft�cr. lire folte..:n: dearriiad Iowa. e:taate, ly:n; end boos in {he Couety of Ea"e
! � ••d Sum of Florida. wait; `
Lots g,vl:utQen (.L?) tinc Ei;ttt.at: (itl) Of
' =lock One*hunarec Four (1J4) NORTH, DF iiiF.
: 'CI;:' OF 4ILMI, Ln ee County, Fiarlra, Lcearv-
$ Ing to trap Plur. ts.rtreor racurteo In P-it
? % �oo:c •E" s; [ ,..ge 41, :0. re.. ?ul-.it: ! •-e ,P�- 91095
Sl- i•;ale 4u..nt%,i.nrita;
'.JGcikLt: +itrt t,:- tuileL•ti;_ �.ri itt;tr ►v;at rrts
1JCL tcd t,.treort, tt:t slid ,.re.:iaes being
iaprovee .itn a ro_el bui.LQin= nak PnJ-a L!s
Ct.t •F19H$_h fdJT_%Lo, JocLted .0 147-4;-i+i-
Y NortueLst rtr.t Street, ml:. , Fiorica.
Tnia deed is executed subject to reatrtetl.)rts
:nd :.i=it::ion:: of recoro; "jilrg orcimtices �,9i09ta'r
{ t ' of the City or ui►o1,Florir:t; Lad ":uts :or �e
tue year 1i►45 &nd subserpent yehrs.
- w :.._ �•
And um «:d par`,Eso( the firer p.rt aa,��.. 6"; (aUj :PvrirmY the dtk to .aid l.ai, end will d+erad
j
Blot darn ruiner dr leerr■l dliau of aA patwae w) tows oc or.
IN �ll7dESS t7iiYREOF. IL...td ►ea+ --it the tint part h—ve tnee•.ete «• trtoir
raawd%, wool r"Li the day dad year alw.• vritus ..
S:�.d, aeakd ud deri.e.ed is pttsaeet of at: it t
-_.-.... —I ;A...:.
A t: srATE Or tluaaul[aoC
!%+l 1 IIr.RIbY tS7ITTIY. TVs w- •k:. d•f t►et+•-nllr wf-..d Fet... «...w •rt:... d.lf wtkrf.af 1. .d..lslwe
.� ...►. wl s•i- 1.i.-+f•dPoo-" • Te•R 7 TIWA !.Pro kr t.Cv r :,ylr ••.. .. 1 • .
: . ....... .
V. t- ..- .At 16— t. 1•- the pw-, _ t d.•wl►ed Is mod -6 R-Mnl lM rot-e•We of fj..•d twaw•.I-dt-•t I..t... v
s'r. .. t.;t! . ,•.-..--..euwad G• use frw* OW •el+.e.•llf I" t►• I-sp. 01--44 -1p.+-1. '
.'•: AKIs I RYtTgO1 CUITIF1f.'Tim w�-.w J7`'!1 h...,..e «.
! AI' .. M sk- rlf• .f sk..ei.L� ,yr.�kt ^. .f]!'.i r ... +.•w•ts •.d 7rw.+.
;� •..•+:...:. t.4.- -A .%..k try •ed t.d.t• me..w.nttlr rd wwt 1t lw sold Mnb.-.t. /dl .-1-+•a.rl.- dw .6 wJ.
.. J_� 1...r.1f • $.My ...«.. d dA top Oe pan"".t r.e..s.l"i telM.tii.M.s •ed r...y.wt .11 16- .itkt. list. +-•1 I+....t
'/7� k_-- " . • - •r nrw..+t. �..�..�1. 4:11a w .q.it.l.t., w •-J s- .►• W. d.w:1..) slww�•►..•1 .I.w
.-Ir" .•4 ..hAwt w....q.. s :..., ..w....l....Mr.Mr..w r I-N
srT V%* -•. h.,d .-d .tr f.l rai •• Y1 .� Gw•Nf .f
-.l V.s../ C:RMr•evr .• I -.. �. t . ny f. y I'R .L7 �� �=` r A. •t7�,.a__
V, f SMAKHY f%KTIrY. T►...- .1a. do? •.w-•.ifl wP••rnt la n wt. .. .rf...r f.if nskwiM .. .q.:.s. ,.
V wa ..A .N. «i...t.Ia.t..•�
i►� t- ... r-tl 1...w N he ike serowL r- •t-teriMd w ewd .iw t•.e•s!d the t.r.e•.-e •1.•A. •nl err.-.I.de-d ►rf... -..
+t sk•t .. r ..-•..1wus-I Oh- -...- 1s..11 ud alw.tw ilY f-t 0- n-tt-•••.S.M..ar•.w-ed.
V . O IT�F�� .. f 1..-.1 ..d-ii.:af «.! -t-..r..�.� .. r:---.. •tom.... ..... �...
tno
1• I �
_ i L' ! � w_ •L� f 1
s.r! I r
LOOP
Li14,
1 i ;
rf
L
:v
rL
:vJ
It
F 9- 13 0S
C
i
4
P
-... . _....�- .. .'. _,�-_... t
r
wwArtAAir" cc= A M.s'.•w-.• seem R. t ad Pam YmpiY Pm.,"—* cdw" . N.
(94b 3ttarnuwr. st-d. th • a, at Gece�Oer
A, D. If 44 s6T vL-v— VISE t. J3EIB -and F. y G. JOH.4, her husband
.r a- Cw-w of :It t:�'�,•R� -.�t State 0 wi.eon.^in
rort1U=Af OW fw.t perti, s-d.��7C TF .942papt?Tnt; - a-rtrrn,ie"
t
-.i.ti,.e «w•i-r A— low. wf the S..,w of FaOT10i � Iwwx it r,iwcipkl plow .f
1....«.o.. ;- tow f~4! ft. Daa Md Sate or rlorit.L
a-d Isufelle oiubarisrd r tronrct b-.;eras in the Suh dfM+idw puy of lhr.eeead raec
w IT'/NOLM fi: 7h:1 the said ratt1 4 . of The first tart, W and ;- n.w.i.forathra of the era of
,� I4n .C:l�j.?.d) _L•s11Lrs daa �thcr. v_i.tw.t+st cjrtaictrrtti fir,
to hsa•1 paid hw she rid party of the ,wand park the roeelpi ,•Aereef ie f.ancby settee— •�
1.•ta..l- -i:;L !—s-teef. h.,t;.;-ed noel .eta ee tl.a MOW pony of the rawest pen. ate-.seea.e.a .wd
alai -.:ar foeeett. Use fatlo�;s� dorv4bei fasl e;t-me. J&,T and icing in the Gee-ty -t CACt
c .
4'h -d Seta of Florid.. awrite
t_
i Lots S,veutoen (17) and Ei;atertrai
A
' Block One'humarec Four (1JS) NORTH, 3F THE ,
�-A,
44-�
CITY gF SILMI, L ce County, Faorica, sce�ro
.r-
Lag ca um Plbt ttreor rarurdon in Y-tat
book -Ea L t r�ei"• Sl
a , :o: cr v ?uL-Sc ,F • card: ►f'•91O9S
Si !'Je Lu6nty, i-�riuu;
XVIia. Alta t.:a L; Akan.= W-4 tm;+r7vaafnta --
loe:ted ee.ereoa. Llit &Lid pre.aimes being
in;rovea sitn a rotcl ouilaia= now kni-n t&
�. Lids •FIU =h lS3ML11', located ac St7-4;-;+&- i
. r-:�• So -SS Korutesst rirut Strsrt, Iflz:i, Fiortch.
Tris dared is eaecutea sub�sct to restrlctioris _
and :iaiutions of reeora; Lonind oreia:noes �91096
{ t or Las City or f3laoi,Floricia; Lnd t: ;Ltz .or
tote your lj45 Lnd subserusat yours.
se
l+ r Aa/ e1.e .aid parL� .��of Ibt� first paR dam- ►atiy f-iiy-str+ol t`a t(ilrt to eaTd IaniL a� nll dafead
l .
eh.. oas a jo;nel dW iewral tl-ise, of ail ruwsa viwreeo.
INVITTIW WITMOF. th...id part —Uhl do rant Pon ^�S_ hem ea «• t twit
To
%—AS. —4 atol A the day e-d yeer show- +rietw�
5.m- d. soiled a" eleCwr-d is pru ea• of -re
AllP rl1'y�_ fSovl
ir4Tc*FKWJDq :Izc .'as t .
era 1 IItRtSr QlOTRfY. \'Y.r « raL .•s arwTr qp..i M... r.., a..m Ltr w►rrM a, alnl.lrr
(fir ..w...t.•e.r•Y...w rrrr r VMS cv r 'iot.. Lit
K• t a.n Y.._. •. i. rb n••-..:._ A—bw b rA -6 n,—a ee ro•.r.f.r 4.4 W arWdwir.i W— w.
.:... tr�t�( w....�wn.aM � err tmir a.i .a«rrwrwta. nn+-..b+•:..y.....t
♦acn 1 MKTIM ar..TVY. Tar rir - E,3rE X JOW a.... r...
•' . r rY..a. at r4 «Ft,�„1',: L S%°.i
N.+e W ari N w t+rw .., w.rrtrir ay q.rr ta« M r4 b.Y.4 a:e
t.G r.wY s wit w »u a.«c to d. wn..r r+..rYir rdlwi+W .e.i .«••rear .tt a.. wra wr w w+-a
♦� a.Y.. a..w, Mrr.l a/ .na..r. rrrnr r ..writ.•. A �wr. N. 1n.J. 1. 'FJ Aw:�W Yr
S YI a�..+Lt 4..Y.w6...+ MI i—a..... M.ri1 a.4w w. r�.r•J•4.. .M..rrr.inr+a .r Iw v v r.�..
srrrfx
W nw. ✓ AwtIX,�.�..,. r, e - . sly _ �jy_�� _
nWATC nr ti.tmtrl i 1
V, t tr A"y rxarm. aw « ». «, .....«,ir .r....+ w... �.......rr—r +.t, ..m..a.......�...
ii • r.....a i.•aa N r w err..w � *•rn+.a is ..(a» n.r.rK w f.ma.ar A..+1. w ,w«.wara iR.•..-
gz
°_:
�• a fT\'g�..•r i..i w.l MY.:N w.l .r, ... r++. ✓.... _ _...
C! t
:"s
<3 Fc.s
�dt
•n
v
Im
•n
v
Im