HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-91-0075J-90-970(a)
11/16/90
7 RESOLUTION NO. y a.
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM AND
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD TO
DENY THE APPEAL FROM THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION RENDERED IN HIS
LETTER OF APRIL 17, 1989, IN WHICH HE
ADDRESSED QUESTIONS RAISED CONCERNING
CONSTRUCTION AND USES FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2500 NORTHWEST 22 AVENUE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, ALSO DESCRIBED AS ALL OF TRACT A AND
TRACT B LESS SOUTH 170', ZIPES SUBDIVISION,
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 78 AT PAGE 54, OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of
October 15, 1990, Item No. 11, adopted Resolution ZB 92-90 by a
seven to one (7-1) vote, denying the appeal which was duly before
said Board; 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 deny
the herein appeal from the Board's action and to affirm the
decision of the Zoning Board;
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 Zoning Board's decision to deny the
appeal from the Zoning Administrator's decision rendered in his
letter of April 17, 1989, in which he addressed questions raised
concerning construction and uses for the property located at 2500
Northwest 22 Avenue, Miami, Florida, also described as all of
Tract A and B less South 170', ZIPES SUBDIVISION, as recorded in
Plat Book 78, at Page 54, of the Public Records of Dade County,
Florida, is hereby affirmed and the herein appeal is hereby
denied.
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
JAN 24 1991
I RaaurIwc w9 t - 7 CJ ,
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2
ATTE
MATTY HIRAI, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
l,r,.w&yAj M
G. MIRIAM MAER
CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
JURGE'L. ANDEZ
CITY ATTOF$RNEY
GMM:ra:M1876
391.
91- 75
PZW10
ZONING FACT SHEET
LOCATION/LEGAL 2500 NW 22 Avenue
All of Tract A and Tract B less S 170'
ZIPES SUB (78-54) P.R.O.C.
APPELLANT Veronica Nagymihaly
2520 S. Miami Avenue
Miami, FL 33129
Anthony J. O'Donnell, Jr., Esq.
One Brickell Square
801 Brickell Avenue, 24th floor
Miami, FL 33131-2948
ZONING RG-3/5 General Residential.
REQUEST
Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's letter of
April 17, 1989.
RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING, BUILDING
AND ZONING
Deny appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction
as the May 2, 1990, notice of appeal: (A) Does
not challenge an interpretation or decision of
the Zoning Administrator as required by section
3000 (1) of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance
No. 9500, (B) to the extent appellant seeks
review of Zoning Board Resolution ZB 20-88,
dated February 22, 1988: (1) The Zoning Board
would not be Authorized to hear an appeal of its
own action; and (2) such an appeal to the City
Commission would be untimely under section 3201
of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance No, 9500;
and (C) to the extent appellant seeks review of
the issuance of building permst No. 89-185 on
January 9, 19$9, which necessarily constituted �.
4414isions of the Zoning Administrator as to
whether the plans, including setbacks complied
with Zonin 0rdnen reppents such d
3
6 0 0
appeal would be untimely under section 3001 of
the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance No. 9500.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Concur with the opinion of the City Attorney
dated 6-8-89 No C.O. has yet been approved.
Recommendation fo appropriate mitigation:
Concur with the 3-29-90 letter to Narinder Jolly
and emphasize that the County coordinate the
replacement trees with the City's Heritage
Conservation Officer.
PUBIC WORKS No comment.
DADE COUNTY TRAFFIC
AND TRANSPORTATION No comment.
ZONING BOARD
At its meeting of October 15, 1990, the
Zoning Board adopted Resolution ZB 92-90,
by a vote of 7-1, denying the above appeal.
Eight OPPONENTS were present at the meeting,
and three PROPONENTS were present.
CITY COMMISSION At its meeting of December 6, 1990, the
City Commission continued the above.
' i1 ! :• r:
_..__.mot D —
vv e
!11.11! Itlll I•t0�_�'1 f • • Z! . . + '• ,� ►�° et't =
• .
Q • V 3 r.. Q i • o f , U N .W. " s u e c G
r� S T. • : • rJ . ,.,
• o•
fitl IIJIIl+M �0 t 0 L � + ,T • Q � O o
---(Z KEN : • 1 ; ro Q �
111111
v
e to
1 •' 1 - t ' t • • - �,
IR. ! 1• T 1• ii
or / '• a .� r to •• •u•Lee .•
NA 28 ST.
� 1 /a t •
:• ) •s J t r• f tV ! t I � t : � � • � ! I • � n 1•I � I a a •
:• :• t )• �y ! r• N I
Ou
:• C ,• �+ I
_y • • It. It 1 1► I . e I tY 1 r'7 1 i — i :
:! c..i a r! t• • t! • , I►'+ 1
dc N.w.
SPIN a
o to i to r 1 �', • •1• 1 r all
• t .. 2
' • + • ! t n O • • T a +I•I NI`11JJ
3%0 Ake
14 r•
+ r�
• � f
' • •1
�i
III
�I
I�
a
■�
'
• . • •
oil
IJ 1+ 14 h
r11.1 tt •
I
T
• 3
3
:s J•
t�
1
,
N.
^ 4
s �"-*
7
•+TACT
TV
a
;; • 1►�L
,• it 16
• 16 I • J J •1 J•
e ,
J! J2
...
e
J.qf
r .••1 ••.• • rlr •• v-iri w r n. tr lw to
•• t•. • Z 41 w
•
• 1 • j t �1 - I. I fl tit ( • t t It n 1• It�to Aljr n T R. ICG ' •• 1I 11 tl 3
i I ^,
ARD
PIAILR
u • u • •. j c T R to i ► : a T •• ,+ to� rl �s:h
r• • 24* 1•
J•
to J1 ti r• , N W. S .
J I 1
rtoo 0
= TR I TR I N y t�i11i1111.
_.... , 1 Z• •ID.
� 4
`
�� r a •' .•�1 le •1 . .p t el • I, ,� •qf/ ' '11 frll•ir0lrt 1 r.'.
LL
21
yf4 tr t •rm 1wl" •e IN .• its j•• se.1 w
•;! 1 , ) I• 1 tt ' • • • t14i • • IA • 1' * *I11 3 %c* •R 4 ••I/ ♦ 1�'twir
•
see 4
• f • •
1 �' / #• 1 T t• • 14 •
C
AKERMAN. SENTERFITT Fi EIDSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONC DRICKCLL SQUAKC
=t" FLOOR
•OI •KICKCLL AVCNUC
MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131-C8N
13051 3716-04100
rCLCCO►r 1305) 374-6006
August 13, 1990
Hand -Delivery
Ms. Gloria Fox
City of Miami
Building and Zoning Department
Suite 226
275 N.W. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33233
Re: Notice of Appeal of Zoning Administrator's
Interpretation/Decision Pursuant to
Articles 30 and 34. City of Miami Zoning Ordinance
Dear Ms. Fox:
This notice of appeal is filed on behalf of our client,
veronica Nagymihaly d/b/a Nagymihaly Properties, the owner of
real property located at 2201 N.W. 23rd Street, Miami, Florida,
to seek Zoning Board review of the Zoning Administrator's
decisions set forth in his letter of August 1, 1990, and to
request the scheduling of a hearing on this appeal as well as on
the earlier appeal we filed on May 2, 1989, which has yet to be
heard by the Zoning Board. (See Memorandum of May 23, 1989
attached). I enclose the $400 filing fee.
The bases for the appeals are set forth in the attached
letters from this office dated August 9, 1990 and May 2, 1989, as
well as the fact that Dade County has violated the express staff
conditions for the Zoning Board's Resolution ZB-20-88 that
"exi� sting, valUal2le trees on site would be relocated as indicated
one" and that "%S proposed addition would be harmonious
d_cpmgatible with jhS adjacent area." (Sj Zoning Fact Sheet
attached).
1 00%
Ve trurs
Anthony7161p'�oonnell,
9i- 5
;NTER- F !CT 'IENIORANDWil
Gloria Fox re September 14, 1990
Chief, Hearing Boards Division
Building & Zoning Department EiBJECT Nagymihaly vs. City
Case No. 90-06866 (03)
_ warren B:Lttner
Assistant Cit ttorney R=vc
_NCl08UR:5
This will confirm the Law Department's recommendation that all
matters referenced on Mr. Anthony J. O'Donnell's letter dated
August 13, 1990, on behalf of Appellant, Veronica Nagymihaly,
d/b/a Nagymihaly Properties, be advertised and placed together on
the agenda for consideration by the Zoning Board.
Although the Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated May 2, 1989,
referenced in the August 13, 1990 letter, may have been untimely
and . may not be a proper topic for appeal, it is our
recommendation at this juncture that the Zoning Board make those
determinations. Of course, the Appellant, if she is aggrieved by
the ultimate decision of the Zoning Board, may then appeal to the
City Commission to further exhaust her administrative remedies.
Consequently, you have assured us that, if the matters noticed to
be heard at the meeting scheduled on September 17, 1990, are
deferred until October 15, 1990, this will allow sufficient time
for notice to be sent to all interested parties on the remainder
of the items Appellant wishes to be heard.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
WB/sls/P493
:;;Y CF MIAMI. F_ORIOA ".
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Gloria Fox, Division Chief
Hearing Boards
__BuE:'
1 E . Maxwell 2EFE_=ENCES
C ief Assistant City Attorney
Tanning/Development Division ENCLOSURES
May 23, 1989
Notice of Appeal Filed by
Anthony J. O'Donnell, Jr., Esq
2500 N.W. 22nd Avenue
Our Telephone Conversation
of May 23, 1989
This memo serves to confirm our conversation wherein I
advised you that this Office was of the opinion that the
communication appealed by Anthony J. O'Donnell, Jr., Esq. did not
contain appealable interpretations or decisions of the Zoning
Administrator. Consequently, the non -appealable nature of the
questions raised, in combination with the fact that the appeal
time for the special exception and building permits undergirding
the development activity complained of, work to divest the zoning
board of jurisdiction to address this matter as it presently
stands.
JEM/db/Mll2
cc: Sergio Rodriguez, Director, Planning Department
Edith Fuentes, Director, Building and Zoning Department
Joseph A. Genuardi, Zoning Administrator
Guillermo Olmedillo, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
Joseph McManus, Assistant Director, Planning Department
Rafael E. Suarez -Rivas, Assistant City Attorney
91- 75
A C T —,1 0— 9 W E D 1 3 : 0 9 LAW D E P T P 0 2 i 2 0
CITY OF 11.11AMI. FLORIOA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
�sear H. 4G to June 8 1989 inIA-89-026
Lty Manager3uW9CT Appeal by Anthony J�
-+- O'Donnell, Jr., Es%j
I 2500 N.W.:22nd Aven e
I o e L. Fe ndnaez Your MeiIo of 5/3/P9
zOM REFERENCES : I
it
y At torn y
is
You have requested a legal opinion on the following
`" �uestion:
WHM8R A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO A QUERY IS
APPRAZ ABLE I HRH SAID RESPONSE 008E NOT
CONTAlit AN IMMRPRETATION OR DECISION, BUT
ON16T COW?XJ 8 PRIOR DETERMINATIONS WIjZRB TIME
FOR APPEAL HAS ALREADY EXPIRED.
The answer to the question is in the NEQATIVE-
A review of Mr- O'Donnell's letters of February 22, 1909,
March 8, 1989, and March 13, 1989, copies of which are attached
hereto as Attachments "A," "8" and "C," together with yqur
lesponse of April 17, 1989, Attachment "D," hereto ("yqur
etter"), leads this Office to conclude that you did not make an
"interpretation" or "decision" of an appealable nature in said
sespon8es Ordinance 9500, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Miami, Fla. ("Zoning Ordinance"), provides that:
Appeals to the zoning board may be taken by
any person aggrieved or by any officer,
board, or agency of the city affected by:
(1) Any decision of the zoning
admtnistra or, ncluding but not
limited to decisions involving
in�terpretation 5r- the zoning
ordinance an decisions on Class A
or Cloaa 8 special permits, . . - .
00ning Ordinance
4upplied.)
for the City of Miami, Fla., $3000. (Emphadie
f
1�
W E D 1 3 : ►� a L t=i W D E P T
Cesar H. Odio
City Manager
�J
1
June 8, �9d4
Page 2
The operative words in section 3000 are "decision' Viand
"interpretation." "Interpretation" --is not defined in the Zoning
ordinance, but has been defined as:
The art or process of discovering and
ascertaining the meaning of a statute, will,
contract, or other written document. The
discovery and representation of the true
meaning of any signs used 'fo convey ideas.
PGACK'3 LAW DICTIONARY 734 (Sth ed. 1979). It has also been
defined as an "explanation of what is not immediately plain or
explicit." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1182
I1481). �
• i
Although llorida courts apparently have not construed 'the
word "interpretation," other jurisdictions have. Very early on,
it was defined ast
The art of finding out the true sense Qf any
forts of words --that is, the sense which their
author intended to convey --and enabling
others to derive from them the same idea
which the author intended to convey.
illa a of tome v. Knox N.Y., 14 How. Prac. 2681, see a180 Mire
_lytro's. estate, P. , 139 Cal. 87. More recently,,* a
Louisiana court held that "interpretation" is the art or proebss
of discovering and expounding the meaning of a statute, will,.or'
Qther written document. Authement v: Davidson, 366 So,2d 086
jLa.App. 1978).
A review of your letter fails to reveal anything rising. to
the level of an "interpretation." Your statements were roar ly.
ipplications of the law, not interpretations, eer e. , Men OV.
arinaa I c. v. Board of Li uor Control, 204 N.E. 2d , o.
pp. 2d 2190 Further, several of your comments were clea 17.1
inconetusive and indicated that investigations were at 11
continuing (11 a IV). Future determinations on the a oe•
specified inconclusive matters may, at that timer Qualify =as
Appealable interpretationer but are not appealable in thlit
present mate. ,
Of equal import is the matter of whether your subllatj
0eeponee Contained "decisions." A "decision" is defined as .a
detetrnination arrived at after consideration of facts, and, ;in
91 R- 7 5 ' a
C T -.1 0- a 0 W E D IS :0 Q L A W D E P T P. 0 4 i 2 0
.L'
esar H. Odio June 8, 1969
• ity Manager Page 3
legal text, law." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 366 (Sth ed. 1979).
This office previously opined that- decisions rendered by the
toning Administrator in approving. building permits are subject to
the 1$-day appeal period from the date of the permit's issuance.
City of Miami, Florida, Op, City Att'ye MIA-89-09, (February 21,
L989).
Additionally, Resolution ZB 20-88, on February 22, 1988,
granted a spocisl exception and 9pproved the* plans for this
conatruetion of the nursing home complained of by Mr. O'Donnell.
The time for an appeal of ZB 20-88 expired more than a year Ago,
March Sr 1988. Zoning Ordinance for the City of Miami, Florida#
�3241.
In reviewing and approving the very saM Mans, ad A
condition precedent to issuing building permit NO. 89-185 on
:anuary 9, 1989, the zoning administrator necessarily had to slake
e decision as to whether the planar including setbacke, complied
with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Zoning Ordinance of the City.
of Miami. Florida, SS 3402 and 340 2.1. Section 3404 of the
toning Ordinance provides that building permits authorized by the
zoning administrator, on the basis of plans and Applications,
authorize only that use, arrangement and construction set firth
in the approves plans and applications. Consequently, 'any
question of approved plans thereafter involves interpretations
and decisions already made during the permit approval stage.
Accordingly, the decisions relating to building permits i$sued on
January 9r 1989 ahould have been appealed by January 24r 1989..
8oning ordinance for the City of Miami, Florida, 53001.
CONCLOSION
Until judicially or legislatively determined otherwise, it
is the opinion of this office that your letter to Anthony J.-
b'Qonneii, Jr., 84q., did not contain 44ci8ion4 or
interpretations of an appealable nature. Thus, Mr. O'Donnell's
attempt, to "appeal" your letter in invalid and the 8oning e0010'
is without jurisdiction to hear it. further, the questibns,
raised by Mr. O'Donnell, independent of the semantics mattbr,•
still are not proper subjects of review by the Zoning Hoard at,
1
91- 75
WED
Cesar R. Odio -june. 8 ' 1
City Manager Page, 4
p F��v�'2i0
}
i 3 : 1 0 L-0AW DEpT
this time because he is actually challenging earlier dgcisions
for which review was not sought in -a - timely manner.
' Prepared byt Reviewed by s
VLI
E. Haxw441 A. Quinn near 1
ef Assistant City Attorney Deputy y Attorngy
JLF/M/db/MI67
' Attachments
cc: Edith Fuentes, Director, Building and Zoning Department
Joseph A. Qenuardi, Zoning Administrator
Sergio Rodriguez, Director, Planning Department
Gloria Fox. Division Chief, Rearing Boarde
iCT-J.Q—=A I WED 13 : 10 L- P, W 1) E P T
A IUR", SENnUnT 8 EIDSON
ArM&NEM M LAW
44M Ot~-
*at •MM.t► wryer
MCA owe go='
February 22, 1989
21Josegft.GanuardL
C ty of Misai Zoninq Administrator
3 H.W. 2nd Street
Miazlt FIQL-Ida 33128
P
RE �rw OF VTOLATION 2 ;and XVENUE 41
Oar Mr; Genuardi;
Tbig letter constitutes a complaint pursuant to
3409
Zoning. Ordinances. of then City of Miami, filed all baft
V nias X&qymij%4Ly d/b/a Raqywib"y Properties,, the owners
;rpal property located at 2201 N.W. 23rd Street, Hiamiul
'111Aqymihaly property*) The NaWathaly property is izWW
01jacent to the Live Oak Convalescent Home a/k/a Human It"
Hbalth Center,, owned by Metropolitan Dad* County (Metromoad
ICCat4d at 2500 N.W. 22nd Avenue, Miami ("M4trc- Dad* I a prqw
In 1987# Metro -Dads filed a iininq application requ
�'fi
i aftnrw&L. 0:9 a Special' eaSft1.4son by the C4ty of Mi
Miami. zonir
4
ports"y for the expe
iv an of an existing skillod.nuraft
flactUty 10GAt4d, an Metro-Vadaig property, By. kesolut
20-98, 44tedt. February* 22,, ItM, the: Zoning Board
D94o0s request* The City of Miami than issued building pass
Mitre-Da"..tor the construction of tho-exp&"ion.
For. thfts
set 90rt1r'b010w, tA6 resolution qraattnq the special exc*VW
the building POTMitS issu" ars- in violation a f theCj
Klanife toMm , i Oftin
#VqP%" W-f the pzVeent use otV%
% 44#4 VXWO"y and the Lnt4rAo& use *9 the expwwian are-sa
v o1a
tiOn 09 the CttYfs Zoninq Ord aces.
qb
We
VL
r"T
T - 1 Q-71 WED 1$ 1 1 L-AW DEPT P a?'':Z
Mr, .Taosph Gonuardi
'tabruary 2 x • 19 89
• Page 2
r +
I 2nvalid
Prior to tie Zaninq Board hearinq,
the City providesthe
public with published notice attd also sent notioe to real.-oaeatai
owners Within 375 feet of the site. Howeveri these ;ngbdeasw
stated only that a special exception was being r8cluestad. "tW 01t�•
an addition to the existinq nursing h=. (Live Oak CottV*
Rome) . M The notices !ailed to mention that the *xistinq. +ktmgesiitq:•
homa" is presently providing it 'uq and alcohol rehabs i!.lsi#oet:
services as well as clinic type sotvioas on An otitpati baslarr}''•
and that the proposed addition would also be use ads a
rehabilitation center and clinic providing serviceru
outpatient basis. As such, the notices were misle+ndinq,
Sn ardor to be lagally sucticiant, not*aa to th o.•
and property owners must adequately set lortlL what
proposed. Moreover, the actual change approved suns-•. s
substantially to tha proposed ehaagas. in the notices.
sent .regardinq tho proposed ahaagss: to MotrQ-Dadels
failed to intorm• the affected. propestr • cwnors•a as- t4 the* , +
changes which were actnally to expand. the.. present' illaQ
the property. As a result., the resolution granting the. aL..,
exception based upon this notice is invalid.
Further, no notice was. over- received by VeweFica..
• . -• Nagy�aihaLy, the property owner most substantially a!tec:t W. the
proposed change and most likely to contest ito in fa-.ltrs
Hagymihaiy not only owns.. the property immediately ad:.to
Metro-Oada!s property, but also owns other property w thtas,37S
foot o! Metro-Dadefs property.
TV Tsnnzne�r [Jae + j;.,yta,
we -have base.. advisod-that• tto: existing, "ttursit►q=Qn-
a!,Metiro*'oade►s property is rasentl bein used•as a".
ai ittld is �atient sssvlo , godar the Zotti�tq C� a" ,., • ; ,
lined as an astabllshawgit for patients n
overnight who are admitted for examination and tro*t"ftt.
Notvnq the toot• that sos patiaata may be kept t•'
at Live Oaks convslosaont Hasa,, kept-
n oiAtanance. at this IIt l ty
411nic providlnq outpatint services. wou Ld be in vioUtun
ash eof
both the City Zoning Code and the, City) s comp"honsive 10,14W A
clinic is a coaxorcial use not pernittad under th•.vftsont
residential zoning and land use designation of this proporftyt'•i
91- 75
.+
pa 0
r_T--10—•?0
.w
Q. e e i, 2 Q•. 1f
�'CoW DEFT
Mr. Gonuardi
Februax'y Z2, 1299
Page l
Metiro-pads s property i.s zoned RG-3 General.Rasid+ra�t:
which allows for the maintsnanas' of nursing cars Caoiliti MPOT
by spacial exception. The code tolines nursing homr as a factli
which provides maintenance, parsassai care or Mrs!nq for- a. part
IWOnedift tw§tv-f�t241 hQV=@ This definition dos►n
contemplate the maintenance of a clinic providing serVICSOMon
outpatient basis. Accordingly, Metro -Dada may not main►tatu
Clinic an the property under th* . prosent Zoning. Nor! tt
proposed expansion be used ae a clinics"
We have also been informs&•that the Live Oak C4nviZMOat
Home has been operatinq for soaw time as an alc41101. abWdru
rehabilitation facility. Residential facilities for a1004oUen
drug rehabilitation are not clasaitied in the city•$ ZgnUWACod
as nursing homes but rather are included in the daSiniti of .
CO2MMUMItay, fa],, fsL2Uy. Under the prasebt sa qro:
the propwmy, commnmity based residential. laailitims AW
only by a spacial exception and! are further subject' toK
2034, of the Zoninq ordiaana+e. Tbia. property was. not, a
special exception for • the maintenances•• of tIA0 . C092* a! , id
residautial.faailityt nor vaspit advertised as -a a
residential tacility. Additionally, it is daub ;M ,.tha
present -facility would meet- the» location standard.:�a ar
raquirsments for a community based%rasidantial faoiliky se Soath
in Section-2034 of the Zoning ordinance. As such, 1%*•41 and
rehabilitation activities, may not- be maintained under*At
,Zoninq=• nor may the proposed• expansion of the "nursoqr -be
used to provide clinic or dLnsq- and alcohol reh bLJLtation
services.
• .N•.
IZZ . V eL►tiee o! setback R� ice. "-t : +>
The building permits issued to Matro-Dada . t r,,. the.
can at the expansion oAc tb*j.pr"*rty violate$ t ok`
ragtIir to of the City•s Zoning Ordinances. Matke! in
Presently constructing. the.. sma"'A a* . with. only a f iv4� «t 'i's4t•.
setback tz=* tl%a proparty line• with- the Nagymihaly Pro •ti'R
nursing care facility on Matra-Dade•s property is an .4401. =blic
facilitY. As such, W"is similar to those other noninvik, i..
facilitias identified in Ra-2 anwd Rta-3 raecirina a ems'"t el .
a►llowlnq. construct
violate the Zoning
immediately.
iN peraatsw
�tty�c line
aoQte
on. witnin f lve • ($ ) foot of too
ordinances and shouid be revoked
91-- 75
,JCT- 1 0-90 WED 1?: 1 2 LAW DEPT
Mr. Joseph Oanuardi
February 22,. 1969
Paq• 4
Even it the nursinq.,.care facility is classic
residential operation under. RQ•Z and RG-3, the Aar
nonetheless in violation of the setback requirexanta Of t
2oninq ordinanca which requires that builAiners_alon_ a,;„e;
npr nsrey liria. The permits isswd to HatrQ-made are
ailovinq construction within five (S) feet from the rear
Dadeds property. under the ordizuu=a•s own definitions;
of a , lot Abe". be construed as the shortest -boundary ai
the street. Accordinqly, the front of Motro Oade4s 19
side at the lot facinq Northwest 26th street. As such -
of the property is that side of the property eontique
Haqymihaly property. At the very minimum# than, t!
should only permit construction -within ten (10) f41
property line. Since the permits are permitting cc
within five (S) feet, they ava•.. in violation of t
4rdinaaCas-and should be revoked:and..corrected immadiats
Finally, Motro-Dade . reprisamted: to the ZoziWr
existing. valuable oak treesw on. the. sits, would be ral
indicated on its plans. However,'tha trees existinq of
are .huge oak trees which normally cannot be relocated..
we understand that several of the trees have been- del
Metro•Dade. The destruction of these trees is datrimen
,community and to the Hagymihaly property and shoo;
permitted..
As met forth above, the present Use of Mat
propsintended use of the . expansion violate, tbu
ttiaai*s Uninq Ordinances.. The. existing violations:
whiab will occur in the future are adversely atleal
Ns, ihaly• and are' intarlsrinq'.� with ' the be tetiaiay
ea� ant- of the Magymihaly proparW. Therelora, these*
L
91-
75
n.lcvyM•..
I
Mr. Joseph Cenuardi
F+bruary 229 1989
p4ge 8 '
must be renadied immediataly.
aopraaiated.
Yavr attention to this matter -is
very truly yours?
uH S 3:Z1Z'F a E=D,
moony J •pannell, J ..
. 1�.Tolaa
act Joel momell p L"sq.
Cif of Miami City Attorney••
O!ll.Ca
Joe -KCm&=S
City, of Miami Plaaninq Depastumt
Diam . aonzalas » `
Metro -Dada county Managers office ~
Eileen 8, Mehtar Esq. •
Ketro-Dane County Attornsy4s office
Q,—'=•0 WED 1 3 1 L-FaW DEPT P 1 0. 0
I
t�KERMAN, $ENT Fn-ra EIDSON
AnOMM Ar lath
• orR M,rw�w� ��M�1 '
.rtw AN!
see 01"WW" ^
WNW%
flow Imaleew
IgL"Qpw too"
6.Ms 0000"0 Ys.rw
►mum MftaMe+
Mardi at 1989
Mr. Joseph. Genuardi
city of Kiami zoninq Administrator
475 H.W. 2nd street
riiami, Florida 32128
Rat Veronica Nagymibaly Complaint of Violation
2300 N.W. 22nd Avenue
'Dear iris'. Geauardi s -
This letter is to Conti= that your. inspeatorf s report hlili '' '
revealed the Dade County facility at the above address is '"..P&
presently operatinq as a Co=wdty Based Residential FacilitfiPI",
(CBRr) tor.- alcohol and drug rehabilitations'
This C=r use renders Resolution zs 2o-se, which Approve&the
4upaansion at a "nursinq hosew unlawful because neither the notice
nor the title to this resolution referenced the cmW use as is-
rsquirod by the zoninq code.
haeor_r#ingly, it to imperative that construction neat to the"
•Rayymihaly property be hajtsd at own to allow a proper pubILCL.
Uarinq on the CWW use -and a prow, consideration of approp#tat a --
,restrictions of that use such an seftackas from adjoininq
residential uses. Even • it nriar a2mmmmIg.9t CSR! uses earn. „ r
touted.: tbAW pre080t- e3*9ns10n is utdet. Resolution Z3 20.819 wh
,is pat:�lntiy• defective. ,��+° , ..
Oct luritta► Esser# Esq.
��►ia�1• Kahts � �Bq.
gaeq+eia<• wino
Dis� ecica
ve trtt.Ly y
Antnosty p'rDonneil, ar.
91-
i
•+ wserA.. • .�
::T —,1 0--%:-0 WED i ? : 1 = L_AW D E P T
. 9--
AKEFLMAN. SENn?.FITT a EIDSON`�
ATTORNm AT LAw
one •.h.•N •40mom
No" #% r
001 •ftwwSN OMMMS
w..r., itOwW► ii.MMW
Pekef
Ioor •��+
March 13, 1989
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
City of Miami zoninq Administrator
273 N.K. 2nd street
Miami. Florida 33129
P . i 1 0
Res veronica Nagymihaly Complaint of violation at ,
2800 N.W. 22nd Avenue (Human Resources Health CantexW.
.t , ' I
Dear Mr. Qenuardi: ly,',i,•
This letter it to confirm our telephone conversation on: Kasrtr,::.
10, 1989, in which you advised as that the city was proceedizag-to
issus citations to Metropolitan Dade county for illegally usirWx*
the above referenced facility as an alcohol and druq
rehabilitation center, defined in the city#s zoninq code as -a
Community Based Residantial Facility.
a
Z would aqain reiterate that this illagal use makes the
notice for Resolution zH 2O-84 patently insufficient. You
advised me that the new winq would., accordinq to Dade County:;,..s La
that officials, not be used as a cW but. only for nursing caret%and
that the County will be applying tar a•CBRY special exception, for
its facility. This position is not valid because it evada►=b
clear regn1 resents• of tbAL-city• a zoninq ordinance and
proei ceafM"
and it essentially rewards a wrongdoer which was on notice..
neveVthelessy proceeded- to develop . its property under an O„n-
unl4WfUlly obtained special, exception. See city of carAl ,Gable■_
oe■ohs ■-. 242 80.2d %210 (Fla. 3d WA 1970) (failure of n . ca..
to mention hospital addition invalidates resolution)1 and gfi�=.
Pragoftion at Fla., Too, X. M=2s 34_DCA 1996) (illegally obtained gavernmental�approval3for(Fld.
illegal use invalidated issued bundinq permit).
A'l'TACEIM�N'� "c"
)71
CJ
IS
: 1 ,� LNW LEPT
K r . Joseph Genuard i
{ ' March 130 1989
_ - Paqs 2
The scenario you outlined, Cor-Dada county would first allow
the construction of a buildingonlyS tact from the property line
of my client's residential apartmants - a setback which IIlYd.
would have been approved at public heartnq had the CBRf' si,aoKol.
and druq treatment canter use been revealed. Then, onee:bui).t,
Dada County would request a IISM XAM.approval of this OUT use
with only a 5 feet setback. This approach is not What the lam is.
or should bet and it is unreasonable for the City and Dade County
to place such a public health center next to existinq rasidentiial
properties without any sensitivity to the adjoininq rasidintga
I enclose for your information lour (4) pnotcgraphs I
personally tgok of Dada County's operations on Friday, Maxah 10,
1989. You will note that the s feet setback is located right-
next to an apartuent buildinq wh1e!h hda w ndows la+Wa this _ nav_
dtzm*ems. You will also note that this residential apartment
building is setback note twenty (20) fart - which should be-ths
miDian. for Dade eounty's massive public health ears and
treatment facility. You will also note that the 5 lase sdtbaft
makes the Zoning Board's required relocation of the property*$
once beautiful oak trsas as a butter . You will
further not& that these oak trees, which the Zoning Board
required to be preserved, have been virtually eliminated or
destroyad.by Dade County,
+� I would also turn your attention to section 2034 of the.
-- ,City's Zoning Code and point out that the County's illagal CW
usa would require 2Xtgnai_v�e,ragrilation on2n slag& which must be
"appropriately landscaped and buffered for the comfort,
convenience and enjoyment of the residents with du =w ids neion,
jQr adiaeer►t flrots_ its.++ Sea. 2034.2.2.20 Zoning Code. :Tbers
has been no 4u4h open space provided with any consideration of
Us only neighboring residential property nor has there bNen-a
suitable wall, lance or hedge to separate the properties a*:
requlrod by sec. 2034.2.2.30 of th& City's Zoninq Coda.
Again, the main point is that the Clay and Dade County.
proceeded - after due nptice from my client on February 22, 10e9
to construct an extansion of an illegal cB" to within 5: feat*
9 1 --- '7 5
Y
C - 1 0 ?Qj WELL 1 3 14
T Lt�W DEFT
w�
• Mr. Joseph Gonuardi
March 13, 1909
Page 3
P. 13,-20
of the Nagymihaly property. Thii-illagal act should be haltadr�:
immadiat*ly and corrective•action should be undertaken to avoid
further damaq•s to my client.
veiny truly your At
Pusthony o f tunnel 1, Jr.
AJO/ s j
Enolosure
cat Elloan Mahta, Esq.
HLriam.Maer, Esq.
Joaquin Avinc
Diana Gonzalez
0 1
E F T
4.1 E D ..
0—`?O WED 1 ?
1
L-AW
DEPT
1
M
EDITH M. FUENTES
Olrtctor
April 17, 1989 i
Anthony J. O'Donnell, Jr., Esq.
Akernan, Senterfitt & Eidson - -
301 Brickell Avenue
41amt, Florida 33131
Re: Addition at 2500 11.W. 22 Avenue. Zoning District R6-3/5
Complaint: Issuance of Building Permit No. 89-185
gear Mr. o'Donnell: -
TIN RF%'!,
u A• �' �'V
This is in reply to your letters of February 229 March 8-�
March 13, 1989. I apologize for the delay in responding W.
out as you are aware, from our phone convarsatigns, I have-b
Looking into each of your clientta concerns. Following;.
responses to each of the .issues addressed in your letters:. '
getter of February 22, 1989
Invalid Notion
rues.-
A
46
I have had the personnel of the Hearing Boards sectiow• '
oheak these records and find that notion of the hearing, fit.
for a special exception was sent -to owner of rgoord o _.
property at 2201 N.K. 23 Street, Mr. Gaspar Nagylsihaly,
and address of record 2520 S. Miami Avenue, Miami*.. 1•
Florida, in accordance with Section 62-55(3)• Also, in'
accordance with -the City Code Section 62-550) and (2),
A signs were posted and notice P published in the. � '...
newspaper. •s: .
r2. Improper Use -` ��' •
A zoning inspector viaited the • site and found no:•f
meQical.clinic opprating at the subject faollity. .,
The application for Special Exception was. for a:lr,
addition to a nursing home, which is the major use ot': i .
the existing building. They have proposed using the
addition for nuraiag home use - and according to thee,
Zoning' Boards approval said addition will hang to be`�
used exclusively as a nursing home after it is built.
ATTACWCUT "D" «.
75
9U1 INr ♦yA lAts�w+.,.w, �w ..prw --_ _ s._:_ + ._.:.___. ..:._
0
5
Anthony J Donnell, Jr., Eaq•
Akerman, �Senterfitt & Eidson
April 17, 198,9
"• PaB® Two
Rat _?500 N.W • 22 Avenue
-a-
one of the wings of the building is presently being,
used for alconol and drug rehabilitation. This,.under-
our present City Of 'HSami Zoning ordinance 9500, as.
anended, would be classified as a CBRF• However, we -
have records indicating that the alcohol rehabilitatlon,
or detoxification facility has been in operation since'
1973• The City of t9iami had no requirement for this
type of use until ordinance --9304 was adopted by, the-
City Commission in 1981. Therefore, the existing*
alcohol rehabilitation facility is permitted and'may
continue to be operated.
We are furthe fm investigating the drug rehabilitation
facility to determine whether, in facto as the Dade"
County personnel have informed us this program has tieanr
in operation since 1974. If this is verified then the -
use would he legal nonaonforming. I will keep you-
informed on this item.
III. Violation of Setback Requirements
The lot in question is a double frontage lot which
no rear lot line, only a aide lot line. The required"
side yard according to the City of Miami Zoning:
drdinahae 9500, as amended, page 2 of b of the schedule -
of District Regulation is five (5) feet. The nursing'
home use is not one of the uses listed as requiring is
' twenty (20) feet setback and is not similar to thode
listed.
.
IV. Relocation of Existing Oak Trees
Thirteen oak trees are to be transplanted according tq*
approved plans. An inspection by the toning inspeotot+.
did not reveal damage to these trees-. However•, if anTr'��'� q
of these trees die they will be required to be replaced
With similar trees. The approved plans show additional'
trees to be planted resulting in more trees along your:
o,ilent13 property lute than now exist. �•
I believe my comments in respona$ to your letter
also cover the concerns in your letter of March 81
of February' 229
VI to
�i
11
T--.1 8—`?0 WED 1 Z. : 1 , L►c4W DEFT
Anthony J. O'Donnell, Jr., Esq.
Akerman, Senterfitt 6 Eidson
April 17, 1989
tags Three .�
9E: 2500 N.W. 22 Avenue
Letter of March 11. 7989
P 18i ;c.8
1. i have responded to your First comment under lI, above..
Improper Use. I repeat, the addition was approved for -
Use as a nursing home and the operators of the nursing -
facility a4a}ure us that this is what it will be used:
for. If after it is built and a C -0. is is- s d, it is:
used for any other use not permitted generally in that:
zoning district then and only.then can we take Any -
action.
2.
3•
4.
The City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 95009 as Zmenoed,'
permits, in an RG-3/5, CSRF's only by Special Exception•
in existing or new building. - They crust meet all..
requirements and be approved by the Zoning Boar* at a.
public hemring for any new facility. ?here W'e no
speoial aetbacsc requirements for CBRF• See Seotxonl
2034 of the Zoning Ordinance for specific requirements..
I' have•previcuely addressed your concerns on setbaokir.
and trees in 110 above.
I have addressed the requirements for CBRF and Dan only
repeat that they must meet all the requirement of the•-
Soning Ordinance for any new facility.
I have already.. addressed your assumptions that the-, 1er
addition will be used as a CBRF.
Z believe I have responded to all your questions and
.Very truly yours,
1r • '
J036 A. Genuardi, P.S.
Son! g Atministrator
' JAa/ae•� •�.
va: Edith M. Fuentee, Director
Joel Maxwell, Law Dept.
Juan, Gonzalez
91--
r". -
concerns:-
-10MY* -
fi ,..
75
1 " i'
AKERMAN. SENTERFITT 8 EIDSON
ATTORNEYS AT L-Aw
ON[ 60ICAn► SQUAAt
44" •►eo■
•OI •RICwt►► "It«ut
M/AYI. IWAIOA 33I3I-8046
13081 374-6600
?!►[COPY 17061 374.6009
May 2, 1989
Ms. Gloria Fox
City of Miami
Building and Zoning
Department
Suite 226
275 N.W. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33233
Re:. Notice of Appeal of Zoning Administrator's
Interpretation/Decision Pursuant to Section 3413,
Zoninc Ordinance
Dear Ms. Fox:
On behalf of our client, Veronica Naqymihaly d/b/a Nagymihaly
Properties, the owner of the real property located at 2201 N.W.
23rd Street, Miami, Florida, we file this notice of appeal of the
City of Miami Zoning Administrator's decision and interpretation
setforth in his letter of April 17, 1989, which letter is
attached hereto as.Exhibit "A".
Specifically, the appellant seeks reversal by the Zoning
Board of the Zoning Administrator's conclusion with respect to
the following items in his letter concerning construction and
uses at 2500 N.W. 22 Avenue:
1. Invalid Notice
2. Improper Use
3. Violation of Setback Requirements
4. Relocation of Existing oak Trees
5, Failure to Obtain Special Exception for
CSRF Uses
6. 1110991 Continuation/Expansion of Non- 9 1 - 75
Confolrmnq Uses
ff
Ms. Gloria Fox
Page Two
May 2, 198%
Specific facts supporting reversal are contained in our three (3)
letters to the Zoning Administrator dated February 22, 1989,
March 8, 1989 and March 13, 1989 which are attached hereto as
Exhibit H, C and D.
Please set this appeal for hearing before the Zoning Hoard
and advise the undersigned of the scheduled time of the hearing
AJO/ sj
Enclosures
Respectfully s mitted,
Anthon O'Donnell, Jr.
91 " '7 5
�1
13
C4it:U jaf
EDITH M. FUENTES �I oe�
Director
Apr:, 17, i989
o��CC fly%'
Anthony J. O'Donnell, Jr., Esq.
Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson
801 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
11
CESAR H. ODIO
City Manaler
Re: Addition at 2500 N.W. 22 Avenue, Zoning District RG-3/5
Complaint: Issuance of Building Permit No. 89-185
Dear :Mr. O'Donnell:
This is in reply to your letters of February 22, March 8 and
March 13, 1989. - apologize for the delay in responding to you
but as you are aware, from our phone conversations, T_ have been
looking into each of your client's concerns. Following are
responses to each of the issues addressed in your 'letters:
;.titter of February 22. 1089
�.=nvalid Notice
have had the rersonnel of the Hearing Boards section
check these records and find that notice of the hearing
for a special exception was sent to owner of record of
property at 2201 N.W. 23 Street, Mr. Gaspar `Jagymihaly,
and address cf record 2520 S. Miami Avenue, 'Miami,
=lorida, in accordance with Section 62-55(3)• Also, in
accordance with the City Code Section 62-55(1) and (2)0
signs were posted and notice published in the
newspaper.
:1.-mproper Use
A zoning inspector visited the site and found no
medical clinic operating at the subject facility.
The application for Special Exception was for =_n
addition to a nursing hone, which is the major use of
".'ze existing builAing. 7"hey have proposed using the
addition for nursing home use and according to the
Zoning Board's approval said addition will have to be
used exclusively as a nursing home after it is built.
91—
75
FYSTTCQ*t* 11 le
V
�j
Anthony J. O'Donnel'_, . Esq.
Akerman, Senterfitt s 7-idson
April 17, t 98�
?age Two
RE: 2500 N.W. 22 Avenue
One of the wings of the building is presently being
used for alcohol and drug rehabilitation. This, under
our present City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 9500, as
amended, would be classified as a C°RF. However, we
have records indicating that the alcohol rehabilitation
or detoxification facility has been in operation since
1973. The City of Miami had no requirement for this
type of use until ordinance 9304 was adopted by the
City Commission in 1981. Therefore, the existing
alcohol rehabilitation facility is permitted and may
continue to be operated.
We are further `nvest_gating the drug rehabilitation
facility to determine whether, in fact, as the Dade
County personnel :.Ave informed us this program has been
in operation since '97a. =f this is verified then the
use would he legal nonconforming. I will keep you
informed on this item.
7iolat:.on of Setc:ck °eeuirements
The lot in question is a double frontage lot which has
no rear lot line, ,nly a side lot "ne. The required
side yard according to the City of Miami- Zoning
,rdinance 9500, as amended, page of 5 of the schedule
of ?istrict "Iegul_t_.,n _s f_ve ( 5 ) feet. The nurs_r
•g
come use is not one of the uses 'Listed as requiring a
twenty 1120) feet setback and is not similar to those
__sted .
7. Relocation of Existing flak 7revs
'thirteen oak trees are to be transplanted according to
aprproved plans. an inspection by the zoning=nspector
did not reveal damage to these trees. However, if any
of these trees die they will he required to be reclaced
with similar trees. The approved plans show atd:_ional
trees to be planted resulting in more trees alonsr your
client's property line than now exist.
believe my comments in response to your letter of cebruary 22,
also cover the concerns in your letter of Maren 8, 1989•
r 75
., 2
r]
11
Anthony J. ^'Donnell. jr., Esq.
Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson
April 17, '989
Pare Three
RE: 2500 ` -W. 22 Avenue
Letter of March 12, i089
1 have responded to your First comment under IT, above.
Improper Use. T_ repeat, the addition was approved for
use as a nursing home and the operators of the nursing
facility assure us that this is what it will be used
for. =f after it is built and a C.O. is issued, it is
used for any other use not permitted generally in that
zoning district then and only then can we take any
action.
2. T.he City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 9500, as amended,
permits, in an RG-3/5, CBRF's only by Special Exception
in existing or new building. They must meet all
requirements and be approved by the Zoning Board at a
public hearing for any new facility. There are no
special setback requirements for CBRF. See Section
2034 of the Zoning Ordinance for specific requirements.
?. I have previously addressed your concerns on setbacks
and gees in :=, above.
have addressed the requirements for CBRF and can only
repeat that they must ,meet all the requirement of the
Zoning 2rdinance for any new Facility.
=. I have already addressed your assumpti;,ns that the
addition will be used as a C3RF.
be=live = ^ave responded to all your questions and concerns.
Very truly yours,
Josie�h A. Genuardi, P.E.
Eon :rig Administrator
wrG/er;
cc; Edith M. Fuentes, erector
Joel Maxwell, Law Dept.
Juan Gonzalez
91 75
ri
AKERUAN. SENTER 77 8 EIDSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
O►.0 DPOCnCLL SCUANC
!.� •Loon
Got OMICK LL wCNUC
.11.•1.. /LOWO& 77131-80"
13001 37&.9600
•CLCC0" 1309I 37..608%
:AGLC AGO RCSs ..Cn-CCN7-r1•
iCLCA 00-2219
M
February 22, 1989
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
City of Miami Zoning Administrator
275 N.W. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33128
RE: COMPLAINT OF VIOLATION - 2500 N.W.22nd AVENUE
Dear Mr. Genuardi:
This letter constitutes a complaint pursuant to Section
3409, Zoning Ordinances of the City of Miami, filed on behalf of
Veronica Naqymihaly d/b/a Nagymihaly Properties, the owner of the
real property located at 2201 N.W. 23rd Street, Miami (the
"Nagymihaly property"). The Nagymihaly property is immediately
adjacent to the Live oak Convalescent Home a/k/a Human Resources
Health Center, owned by Metropolitan Dade County (Metro -Dade) and
located at 2500 N.W. 22nd Avenue, Miami ("Metro-Dade's property").
In 1987, Metro -Dade filed a Toning application requesting
approval of a Special Exception by the City of Miami Zoning Board
purportedly for the expansion of an existing skilled nursing care
facility located on Metro-Dade's property. By Resolution ZB
20-68, dated February 22, 1988, the Zoning Board granted Metro-
Dade's request. The City of Miami then issued building permits to
Metro -Dada for the construction of the expansion. For the reasons
set forth below, the resolution granting the spacial exception and
the building permits issued are in violation of the City of
Miami's zoning Ordinances. Moreover, the present use of Metro-
Dade's property and the intended use of the expansion are also in
violation of the Oity•s Zoning Ordinances. 91 - 75
s
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
February 22,•1989
Page 2
I. Invalid Notice
Prior to he Zoning Board hearing, the City provided the
public with published notice and also sent notice to real estate
owners within 375 feet of the site. However, these notices
stated only that a special exception was being requested "to allow
an addition to the existing nursincI home (Live Oak convalescent
Home)." The notices failed to mention that the existing "nursing
home" is presently providing drug and alcohol rehabilitation
services as well as clinic -type services on an outpatient basis,
and that the proposed addition would also be used as a
rehabilitation center and clinic providing services on an
outpatient basis. As such, the notices were misleading.
in order to be legally sufficient, notice to the public
and property owners must adequately set forth what changes are
proposed. Moreover, the actual change approved must conform
substantially to the proposed changes in the notice. The notice
sent regarding the proposed changes to Metro-Dade's property
failed to inform the affected property owners as to the proposed
changes which were actually to expand the present illegal uses of
the property. As a result, the resolution granting the special
exception based upon this notice is invalid.
Further,. no notice was ever received by Veronica
Nagymihaly, the property owner most substantially affected by the
proposed change and most likely to contest it. In fact, Mrs.
Nagymihaly not only owns the property immediately adjacent to
Metro-Dade's property, but also owns other property within :75
feet of Metro-Dade's property.
T__.....im�Use
We have been advised that the existing "nursing home" on
Metro -Dada's property is presently being used as a clinic
providing outpatient services. Under the Zoning ordinances, a
clinic is defined as an establishment for patients not lodged
overnight who are admitted for examination and treatment.
Notwithstanding the fact that some patients may be kept overnight
at Live Oaks Convalescent dome, the maintenance of this facility
as a clinic providing outpatient services would be in violation of
both the City Zoning Code and the City's comprehensive plan- A
clinic is a► commercial use not permitted under the present
fesidentiol Zoning and land use designation of this property.
91- 75
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
February 22, 1969
Page 3
Metro-Dade's property is zoned RG-3 General Residential
which allows for the maintenance of nursing care facilities only
by special exception. The c-ade-efines nursing home as a facility
which provides maintenance, personal care or nursing for a period
exceeding twenty-four (241 hourl. This definition does not
contemplate the maintenance of a clinic providing services on an
outpatient basis. Accordingly, Metro -Dade may not maintain a
clinic on the property under the present zoning. Nor may the
proposed expansion be used as a clinic.
We have also been informed that the Live Oak Convalescent
Home has been operating for some time as an alcohol and drug
rehabilitation facility. Residential facilities for alcohol and
drug rehabilitation are not classified in the City's Zoning Code
as nursing homes but rather are included in the definition of a
community based residential facility. Under the present zoning of
the property, community based residential facilities are permitted
only by a special exception and are further subject to Section
2034 of the Zoning ordinance. This property was not granted a
special exception for the maintenance of the community based
residential facility; nor was it advertised as a community based
residential facility. Additionally, it is doubtful that the
present facility would meet the location standards and other
requirements for a community based residential facility set forth
in Section 2034 of the Zoning Ordinance. As such, the clinic and
rehabilitation activities may not be maintained under the present
zoning; nor may the proposed expansion of the "nursing home" be
used to provide clinic or drug and alcohol rehabilitation
services.
The building permits issued to Metro -Dade for the
construction of the expansion on the property violate the setback
requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinances. Metro -Dade is
presently constructing the expansion with only a five (5) feet
setback from the property line with the Nagymihaiy Property. The
nursing care facility on Metro-Dade's property is an open public
facility. As such, it is similar to those other non-residential
facilities identified in RG-2 and RG-3 rerniiriner a twont-v r2ni
414Ow3.ng co:
violate the
immediately.
isTpruczion within five (s) feet of the
Zoning Ordinances and should be revoked
Thus, permits
property line
and corrected
91-r 75
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
February 22,. 1989
Page 4
Even if the nursing care facility is classified as a
residential operation under RG-2 and RG-3, the permits are
nonetheless in violation of the setback requirements of the City's
Zoning Ordinance which requires that buildings along the rear of -a
residential lot be set back at least ten (101 feet from the
grey line. The permits issued to Metro -Dade are presently
allowing construction within five (5) feet from the rear of Metro-
Dade's property. Under the Ordinance's own definitions, the front
of a lot shall be construed as the shortest boundary adjacent to
the street. Accordingly, the front of Metro Dade's lot is that
side of the lot facing Northwest 26th Street. As such, the rear
of the property is that side of the property contiguous to the
Nagymihaly property. At the very minimum, then, the permits
should only permit construction within ten (10) feet of the
property line. Since the permits are permitting construction
within five (5) feet, they are in violation of the Zoning
Ordinances and should be revoked and corrected immediately.
Finally, Metro -Dade represented to the Zoning Board that
existing valuable oak trees on the site would be relocated as
indicated on its plans. However, the trees existing on the site
are huge oak trees which normally cannot be relocated. Already,
we understand that several of the trees have been destroyed by
Metro -Dade. The destruction of these trees is detrimental to the
community and to the Naqymihaly property and should not .be
permitted.
As set forth above, the present use of Metro-Dade's
property and intended use of the expansion violate the City of
Miami's Zoning Ordinances. The existing violations and those
which will occur in the future are adversely affecting Mrs.
Nagymihaly and are interfering with the beneficial use and
enjoyment of the Nagymihaly property. Therefore, these violation
91 ` 75
•
11
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
February 22,'1989
Paqe 5
must be remedied immediately.
appreciated.
Your attention to this matter is
Very truly yours,
AKERMAN, SENTERFIX & EIDSON
14
thony J 'Donnell, J .
AJO/mc
cc: Joel Maxwell, Esq.
City of Miami City Attorney's
Office
Joe McManus
City of Miami Planning Department
Diana Gonzalez
Metro -Dade County Manager's Office
Eileen H. Mehta, Esq.
Metro -Dade County Attorney's Office
91-- 75
AKERMAN. SENTER,FITT a EIDSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
0"a 4610ac« sau•wc
•ao •AICR[ CM we
ru►..f, PLOW*& It-a!M
tint) 374-61S00
TCLCCOA I3091 3s41-9096
CA416[ ^comet• •RCA-tSMt. rl•
fc%.ca so -salt
March 8, 1989
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
City of Miami Zoning Administrator
275 N.W. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33128
Re: Veronica Nagymihaly Complaint of Violation
2500 N.W. 22nd Avenue
Dear Mr. Genuardi:
This letter is to confirm that your inspector's report has
revealed the Dade County facility at the above address is
f presently operating as a Community Based Residential Facility
f (CBRF) for alcohol and drug rehabilitation.
This CBRF use renders Resolution ZB 20-88, which approved the
expansion of a "nursing home" unlawful because neither the notice
nor the title to this resolution referenced the CBRF use as is
required by the zoning code.
Accordingly, it is imperative that construction next to the
Naqymihaly property be halted at once to allow a proper public
hearing on the CBRF use and a proper consideration of appropriate
restrictions of that use such as setbacks from adjoining
residential uses. Even if prigr anproovva,_ls of CBRF uses can be
found, the present expansion is under Resolution ZB 20-88 which
is patently defective.
VQ=r truly y
Anthony O'Donnell, Jr.
Aj0/Xj
cc: Miriam Maer, Esq.
Ei146n Mshta, Esq.
�Aquin Avino
9 75
3-5
C
AKMMAN. SENTERFITT 8 EIDSON
ATrcP.,q Y3 AT LAW
OMC •A/CRCLI. 9OVAAV.
14� r1000
$01 G*ICRCIL Avamwe
r1AM1. r10010A 17171-49N
17001 774-0400
rC►CC0vv 43041 374•009%
*CICA GO•3410
March 13, 1989
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
City of Miami Zoning Administrator
275 N.W. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33128
Re: Veronica Nagymihaly Complaint of Violation at
2500 N.W. 22nd Avenue (Human Resources Health Center)
Dear Mr. Genuardi:
This letter if to confirm our telephone conversation on March
10, 1989, in which you advised me that the City was proceeding to
issue citations to Metropolitan Dade County for illegally using
the above referenced facility as an alcohol and drug
rehabilitation center, defined in the City's zoning code as a
Community Based Residential Facility.
I would again reiterate that this illegal use makes the
notice for Resolution ZB 20-88 patently insufficient. You
advised me that the new wing would, according to Dade County
officials, not be used as a CBRF but only for nursing care; and
that the County will be applying for a CBRF special exception for
its facility. This position is not valid because it evades the
clear requirements of the City's zoning ordinance and procedures,
and it essentially rewards a wrongdoer which was on notice and,
nevertheless,. Proceeded to develop its property under an
unlawfully Obtained special exception. See Cit,v of coral Gables
v. Deschamps, 1242 So.'2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (failure of notice
to mention hospital addition invalidates resolution); and QoronA
Properties of Fla != v ' .�20rog..1,Coupt.Y, 485 So.2d 1314 (Fla.
3d DCA 1985) (illegally obtained governmental approval for
illegal use invalidated issued building permit).
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
March 13, 1989
Page 2
The scenario you outlined for Dade County would first allow
the construction of a building only 5 feet from the property line
of my client's residential apartments - a setback which never
would have been approved at public hearing had the CBRF alcohol
and drug treatment center use been revealed. Then, once built,
Dade County would request a post facto approval of this CBRF use
with only a 5 feet setback. This approach is not what the law is
or should be; and it is unreasonable for the City and Dade County
to place such a public health center next to existing residential
properties without any sensitivity to the adjoining residents.
I enclose for your information four (4) photographs I
personally took of Dade County's operations on Friday, March 10,
1989. You will note that the 5 feet setback is located right
next to an apartment building which has windows facing this new
structure. You will also note that this residential apartment
building is setback some twenty (20) feet - which should be the
minimum for Dade County's massive public health care and
treatment facility. You will also note that the 5 feet setback
makes the Zoning Board's required relocation of the property's
once beautiful oak trees as a buffer impossible. You will
further note that these oak trees, which the Zoning Board
required to be preserved, have been virtually eliminated or
destroyed by Dade County.
I would also turn your attention to Section 2034 of the
City's Zoning Code and point out that the County's illegal CBRF
use would require extensive r_c_r2ation offer} space_ which must be
"appropriately landscaped and buffered for the comfort,
convenience and enjoyment of the residents with due consideration
for adjacent priopelMiAS." Sec. 2034.2.2.2, Zoning Code. There
has been no such open space provided with any consideration of
the only neighboring residential property nor has there been a
suitable wall, fence or hedge to separate the properties as
required by Sec. 2034.2.2.3, of the City's Zoning Code.
Again, the main point is that the City and
proceeded - after due notice from my client on
- to construct an extension of an illegal CBRF
Dade County
February 22, 1989
to within 5 feet
91 75
37
.0
Mr. Joseph Genuardi
March 13, 1989
Page 3
of the Naqymihaly property. This illegal act should be halted
immediately and corrective action should be undertaken to avoid
further damages to my client.
AJO/sj
Enclosure
cc: Eileen Mehta, Esq.
Miriam Maer, Esq.
Joaquin Avino
Diana Gonzalez
Very truly your,
Anthon J. O'Donnell, Jr.
Y
ya � 75
75
Em
si
i
- - H►� � ♦.fir s*
o 1 e
ZONING FACT SHEET
LOCATION/LEGAL 2500 NW 22 Avenue
All of T•-,:t A ana Tract 8 less the S 170'
ZIPES SUo ,78-54) P.R.O.C.
APPLICANT OWNER Metropolitan Dade County
c/o Sergio Pereira, County Manager
111 NW First Street
Suite 2910
Miami, Florida 33128 Phone #375-5311
ZONING
RG-3/5 General Residential
REQUEST Special Exception aaLlisted in. Ordinance 9500,
as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Miami, Schedule of District Regulations, page 2
of 6, Principal Uses and Structures, RG-3
General Residential to allow an addition to the
existing nursing home (Live Oak Convalescent
Home), on above site, as per plans on file.
RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
APPRUVAL 8Y iHE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.e
Special Exception as reques tea meets the intent
of Zoning Ordinance 9500. The proposed addition
would not impact or adversely affect the
surrounding area. The location and size of the
Proposed addition is acceptable as it is within
the confines of the existing nursing home. All
the required oarking soaces are provided .on
site. Existing valuable trees on site would be
relocated as indicated on plans. Furtne sore,
the oroDosea addition would be harmonious and
compatible with the adjacent area ana would be
beneficial to the community.
PUBLIC WORKS No comment.
DADE COUNTY PUBLIC
WORKS No objections.
99-- 75
Z
0
•
APPLICATION FOR A CLASS D SPECIAL PERMIT OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
File Number DSE-83-_
Within dtis 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 to promote the general purposes of this Zoning
Ordinance, and, in particular, to protect adjoining properties and the neighborhood
from avoidable potentially adverse effects. It is further intended that the expertise
and judgement of the Zoning Board be exercised in making such determtnationa, in
accordance with the rules, considerations and limitations relating to Class D Special
Permits and Special Exceptions. (See Article 26.)
Formal public notice and hearing is not mandatory for CIass D Special Permits, but is
mandatory for Special Exceptions. In other respects, these classes of special permits
are the same.
The Zoning Board shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for
Class D Special Permits and Special Exceptions. All applications in these classes of
special permits shall be referred to the director of the Department of Planning for his
recommendations and the director shall make any further referrals required by these
regulations.
I, Sergio Pereira, County Manager hereby apply to the City of
nmi _en'T'-neRoara for aoorovai at. check one:
Class O Special Permit
_ X Special Exception
for property located at 2500,_W 22nd Avenue
Miami.
Nature of Proposed Use (Be specific)
Expansion of existing skilled nursing care facilities.
. 91-- 75
4
�1 attach the following in support or explanation of this application: '
_X,_ 1. Two surveys of the property prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land
Surveyor.
X Z. Four copies of: site plan showing (as required) property boundaries, existing and
proposed structure(s), parking, landscaping, screening, etc; building elevations (if
required) with dimensions and computations of lot area (gross and net), LUI ratios
(open space, floor area, parking, etc.), building spacing and height envelope.
See Section 2304.2.1(c).
_X 3. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of
interest form (Farm 4-83 and attach to application.).
�X 4. Certified list of owners of reolestate within 3751 radious from the outside
boundaries of property covered by this application. (See Form 6-83 and attach to
application). .
_ (X 5. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements).
6. other (Specify)
X 7. Fee of $_._.� based on following:
(a) Class D $300.00
(b) Special Exception $4W.00
(c) Surcharge equal to applicable fee from (a) or (b) above riot to exceed $400; to
_ be refunded if there is no appeal (City Code Section 62-61).
Signature
ner or Authorizild7 t
Name SERGIO PEREIRA
Address 111 N.W. First St., Suite 2910
City, State, Zip Miami, FL 33128
Phone 375-5311
STATE OF FLORIDA) SS:
COUNTY OF DADE )
OIANA M. GONZALEZ ( for the Countv Manager) being duly sworn,
deipikil and says thet he is the t8we authorized agent of t e real property described
abovq that he has read the foregoing answers and than the some are true and complete; and
(if acting as agent for owner) that he has authority to execute this application form on
behalf of the owner.
91— 75
VM 100a 43
•
•
r»
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
befor a this clay/
of 19Eli .
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
tiOTAPY PUBLIC STATE ^F FLCQT0A
'Y SJINISSION EXP. APR. 2,220
SONOE0 TH U GENERAL INS. UMO.
(SEAL)
Name
1
NotT P, ublic,.State of Florida at Large
91-- 75
Form 1043A4
:o •
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FW-RIDA)
SS.
C1U = OF DAME )
Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally
appeared OIANA M. GONZALEZ forte, who being by me first duly sworn,
County tanager
upon oath, deposes and says:
1. That he is the owner, or the legal representative of the
owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as
required by Ordinance No. 9500 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, .
effecting 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 represents, if aray, have given their
full and complete permission for him to act in their behalf for the change
or =&.Xicatian of a cla: sJSi cati on or regulatirei of wnit;g ap net out. In
the accmInnying petition.
3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this
affidavit coaWn the current names, mailina addresses, phone numbers and.. ..
legal descriptions for the real property which'he is thst 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. t
1
(Name1
Sworn to and Subscribed before me
this ` day 0 = 19'7. -
Notary Publiat State of Florida at Large
My Cm-4mion Expires:
bUWOEC ►prU GiMFAAI IMS. UMO.J
91
75
OWNER'S LIST
Owner's Name Metropolitan Dade County c/o Sergio Pereira, County Manager
,.ailing Address Ill N.W. First Street, Suite 2910. Miami, Florida 33128
7eleonone Number 375-5311
regal Description: LIVE OAK CONVALESCENT HOME: Tract A and 8 of Zipes
Subdivision, according to the plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 78 at Page 54 of the Public Records of Dade
County; LESS the South 170 feet of said Tract B.
Owner's Name
Mailing Address
Telephone Number_
Legal Description:
Owner's Name
Mailing Address
Telephone Number
Legal Description:
Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally
(by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375' of the subject
site is listed as follows:
Street Address Legal Description
NONE
Street Address
Street Address
Legal Description
Legal Description
9 1 -- '7 5
C�7
DISCLOSURE OF SHIP
1. Legal description and street address of subject real property:
LIVE OAK CONVALESCENT HOME: Tract A and B of Zipes Subdivision,
according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 78 at
Page 54 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; LESS
the South 170 feet of said Tract B.
2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership.
Note% City of Mimi Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties
Faving 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 all shareholders of
corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties,
together with their addresses and proportionate interest.
Metropolitan Dade County 100%
c/o Sergio Pereira,County Manager
111 N.W. First Street
Suite 2910
Miami, Florida 33128
3. Leyul description and street addresib of
owned by any party listed in answer to question #2,
375 feet of the subject real property.
NONE
STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS:
COLNUrY OF DADE )
any teal prope:t•r W
amJ (b) located w1thin
1, J (1- A . Co '� zAZ.&_Z , being duly sworn, deposes and
says that ne is the rvner) Attorney for Owner) of the real property
described in answer to question##, abovet that he has read the foregoing
answers and that the same are true and completer and'(if acting as*attorney
for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership
form on behalf of the owner.
(SEAL)-..
(time)-
SWORN ZU AND SMSCHSEED
before me this
day of ', 'T98 .
tary MEMO. state o
Florida at Large
MY ca*== E MSES:
0
�11
STATE OF FLORMA ) SS:
COtJMY OF DADE )
DIANA M. GONZALEZ for the
being duly swum, deposes and
says that he is the duly appointea entat i ve of Dade Counrt,Y—,
the owner of the real property described in answer to question #it aoovet
that he has read the foregoing answers= that the same are true and com-
plete; and that he has the authority to execute this Disclosure �af Owner- _
ship form on -behalf -of -the owner. —+ `
MOM TO AM SUBSCRIUD
before this
day of
Mary c,
Lerida at Large
iY CCMMISSICN EMIRES:
ROTARY "are STATE or vIORTrA
" eo"SrON EXP, V. 1�19�0
QOROEO FJIE8
TIM 6Al tNS. UND.
v
(SM)
9 1 -- '7 5►
C %wPC/4b/G25
Mrs. Elba Korales offered the following Resolution and
.;roved its adoption.
:�zSOLUT_m-N 2? 20-R9
AFTr'. CONSIIE:.ING THE FACTORS TORS SET ^ORTH IV
SECT+CN 2?05 :F ORDINANCE 95d0, AS AMENDED,
THE ZONING iOARD sRANTED :HE SPECIAL
EXCEPTION AS LISTED =:J ORDINANCE 9500 , AS
A14ENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SC MIAMI, HEDULc OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, PAGE
2 OF 6, ?RINCI?AL 'USES ;ND STRUCTURES, RG-?
GENERAL RESI:ENTIAL TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO
THE EXISTING NURSING KOM£ (LIVE OAK
CONVALESCENT -OME) FOR ?ROPEP.TY LOCATED AT
2500 NW 2= AVENUE ALSO DESCRIBED AS ALL OF
TRACT A AND TRACT 3 LESS THE S 170' , ZIPE'S
SUB (78 u) ?.R.D.C., AS PER FLANS C`�1 FILE;
ZONED ?s-:% JENERAL RESIDENT=AL. THIS
SPECIAL=XC=:'�_JN APPLICATION SAS TIME
LIMITAT_C`1 „dEL7E "ONTHS Z:i ':;HIC:R a
3UIL:ZNG .=D`".=: `!UST BE OBTAINED.
Jpon :^einx seccrded bq Mr. ZeorEe :"ands, :he moclon was
z_ssed and adopted ty :te follc++irg *tote:
AYES: '4s. ':orales, ?asila and Skubish
Messrs. Moran -='_beaux, Sands, Luaces ,
?ame:, :unn vnd
4AY=S : `Jane
ABSENT: 'tone
Ma . Fox : Mottzn carries 9 to 0 .
91--
75
1 62.55 ZONING AND PLANNING
Sec. 82-55. Same —Types.
The requirements for the types of public
notice are as follows:
(1) Newspaper publication. Publication of
public notice in a newspaper shall consist
of publication in:
(a) A daily newspaper of general circulation
in the city,
(b) A daily newspaper of general circula-
tion in the city devoted primarily to
the reporting of financial, business,
industrial and legal information: and
(c) A newspaper devoted primarily to
reporting information of interest in
an area or locality of the city.
Such publications shall be made not less
than ten (10) days in advance of the
public hearing.
(2) Posting.
(a) Where posting of a property is
required, it shall be done at least ten
(10) days in advance of the hearing
and shall consist of a sign to be
posted on the such land which shall
measure at least three (3) square feet
in area, shall be of a color distin-
guishable from the surrounding land-
scape, and shall contain substantially
the following language:
"A PUBLIC HEARING CON-
CERNING THE REZONING OF
THIS PROPERTY FROM
To WILL BE HELD BY
THE (ZONING BOARD, CITY
COON PLANNING ADVISORY
t BOARD, HERITAGE CONSERVATION
BOARD) OF THE CITY OF bUAML CALL
' (phou number) FOR INFORMATION."
or
"A PUBLIC HEARING INVOLV-
ING A VARIANCE ON THIS PROP-
ERTY TO (short statement of nature
of variance nequested) WILL BE
is HELD BY THE (ZONING BOARD,
}' CITY COMMI3SSION) OF THE CITY
1 62-M
OF MIAMI. CALL (phone number)
FOR INFORMATION."
or
"A PUBLIC HEARING INVOLVING
A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THIS
PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
(ahortstatement of aatmeorztRant) WII.L
BE F3EI.D BY THE (ZONING BOARD,
CITY COM3IISSION) OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI. CALL (phone number) FOR
INFORMATION."
(b) The sign shall be erected in full view of
the public on each street side of such
land. Where the property for which re-
zoning, variance or special exception, as
the case may be. is sought is landlocked.
the sign shall be erected on the nearest
street right-of-way, with an attached no-
tation indicating generally the distance
and direction to the property for which
rezoning is sought. Where large parcels
of property are involved with street fivnt-
ages extending over considerable distances,
as many signs shall be erected on a street
frontage as may be deemed adequate to
inform the public.
(e) It shall be a misdemeanor in the
second degree, punishable pursuant to
sections 775.082 and 775.083, Florida
Statutes, for any unauthorized person
to tamper with or remove the signs
posted pursuant to this section
(3) Mail notice. Notice of the time and place
of the public hearing by the planning
advisory board. sonitn; board. or city
commission, as the can may be, shall be
sent at least ten (10) days in advance of
the hearing by mail to the owner of the
subject property or his designated agent
or attorney, if any.
Notice of the time and place of the
public hearing by the planning adviowy
board, zoning board, or city eeoasmisaiosn.
as the case may be, shall be sent at least
ten (10) days in advmce of the hearing
by mail to all owners of Wid"
three hundred seventy-ttve (375) foot of
the property lint of rho land (e v*kb
the bearing is r"Wrod. For dw P�1
i1- 75
,�- 4105
� t+ �.
•'
�: .�
�.
.+
;�.<;. --
��.
TRF.F Rf 1 Ot'.1tlt?N LIST
SPI.�S
CJil.iPi'R
llC:iGlif b SPREM
;3UTiBER
1 OAK
30 x 30"
- OAK
4O••
30' x14K-
l 65E A,taF?
3 OAK
30"
20 x 164
L OAK
32"
24' x 24'
OAK
48"
36' x 30'
5
36"
20' x 22'
6 UAK
I4"
2G' x 20'
7 OAK
14"
:2' x 18'
8 uAK
12"
2C' x 10'
g OAK
24"
24' x 24'
10 OAS:
24";4r
x 24'
11 t�
16"
.0' x l2'
12 OAK
16"
2CO x 26'
13 OM.
/
NOTES : '
1. All. il+t�d trar� hw•• 6wru heavily primed wltl•!n tl+e
past two year+, will, sul.atantlal tree canopy raraoved,
ad
s are
2, All caapproximateeo on
allu, ,,,tractor -*ad belgilt and tehouldsverifytWor•
f bidding.
pt' f1 . t
. ____--- - ____ - ��� ��E�1 Foy-ta- �►`t�' >t '
10.
----------------
141
t• i �
UC'4r� OLh1CA �
1 � . • tr M
I,coc�- G1N
! or,
'WA
1 0 6
NTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
- A. Vicky Leiva :ATE
Assistant City Attorney
.:2JECT
E . Ma xwe
( A}�sistant City Attorney ===EgENCES
`� :`CLOSURES
February 28, 1989 �`LE
Possible Code Violations
2500 NW 22 Avenue
Letter to Joseph Genuardi
from Anthony J. O'Donnell,
Esq., dated 2/22/89
Attached, hereto, ie a copy of the referenced letter which
was received by this Office on February 22, 1989. Please peruse
this letter from the standpoint of possible Code enforcement
Board action, should the Zoninq Administrator deem that the
allegations reaardinq specific Code violations are valid.
You may want to speak with Mr. Genuardi after you have had a
chance to read this letter. Other sections of the letter will
have to be addressed by the Zoning Administrator, the Planning
Department, Building and Zoning Department and this Office apart
from the Code violation allegations.
JEM/db/P802
Attachment
cc: Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney
Editn Fuentes, Director, Building and Zoning Dept.
Sergio Rodriquez, Director, Planning Dep vftmeAu
Gloria Fox, Hearing -Boards Division - Tk'FOR PY
N