HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-09430th
ORDINANCE NO. 9 4 3 U
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE; NO. 6871,
AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE; CITY OF HIAMI, BY
AMENDING ARTICLE XXXI , OF SAID ORDINANCE
LNTIT LED "VARIANCES", MORE PARTICULARLY BY
AMENDING SECTION 6(2) OF SAID ARTICLE
_ ENTITLED "APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF ZON-
ING BOARD"; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS FROM
SAID BOARD BY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CER-
TIORARI; AND BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT
AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILI`i'Y CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, the Hiami Planning Advisory Board, at its
meeting of March 17, 1982, Item No. 2, following an adver-
tised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 19-82, by a 4 to 3
vote RECOMMENDING DENIAL of amending Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance 6871, as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful considera-
tion of this matter, deems it advisable and in the best
interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its
inhabitants to grant this amendment, as hereinafter set
forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 6(2) of Article XXXI of Ordi-
nance No. 6871, as amended, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi-
nance for the City of Miami,
follows: l/
ARTICLE XXXI - VARIANCES
Section 1. Intent
is hereby amended to read as
Note: Above information merely indicates location
of amendatory material:
l/ Words stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored
words constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining
provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.
Asterisks indicate omitted and unchanged material.
6 6
Section G. (1) Appeals from Decisions of Zoning Board
(2) Any person, or persons, jointly
or severally, aggrieved by any
action of the City Commission
affirming, modifying, or rever-
sing a decision of the Zoning
Board, or any officer, depart-
ment, board, commission, or
bureau of the City may seek
recourse to the courts &a-pra-
t��eleel-bp-the-�a�rs-e�-F�e��ela
filing a petition for issuance
of a Writ of Certiorari, in
the manner and within the time
provided by Florida Appellate
Rules.
Section 2. That all Ordinances, Code Sections or
parts thereof: in conflict herewith be and the same are
hereby repealed insofar as they are in conflict.
Section 3. Should any part or provision of this
Ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid the same shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole.
PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 22nd day of
Apri 1 , 1982.
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE
ONLY this 27th day of
May , 1982.
Maurice A Ferre
MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor
AT T
RA H G. ONGIE
City Clerk
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
JO L E. MAXWELL
Assistant. City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTION:
GEORGE F . KNOX , JR .
City Attorney
2
9430
C
MIAMI REVIEW
AND DAILY RECORD
Published Daily except Saturday. Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Dade County, Florida,
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
Dianna Stuver, who on oath says that she is the Assistant to
the Publisher of the Miami Review and Daily Record, a daily
Saturday, Sunday
publishedat MiamiIn Dade Cou ty. FloridaHolidays) that the attached
copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice
In the matter of
City of Miami
Re: ORDINANCE NO. 9430
X X X
Court.
IrHbe.........................................
was published In said newspaper In the Issues of
June 9, 1982
Affiant further says that the said Miami Review and Daily
Record is a newspaper published at Miami In said Dade County.
Floridad newSpaper has heretofore been
continuously,
and that the (
ously published in said Dade County, Florida, each day
(except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been
st
entered
In said Dade County, mallet
as second cla Sty Flo das mail for aa tpeeriodo office
e of one year
next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement: and affient further says that she has neither
paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount.
rebate. commission o.- refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication In the said newspaper.
' • ri
M 4wo7rfp and lipbscrified before me this
82
9th �f: " y� ,'ty. A.D. 19
r .+argil Franco
Notary PytAIc,�t�le of Florida at Large
(SEAL) `�i l.'s;,irl,ja i `��
My Commission 6ilpir¢1; 4�02d1 1985.
MR 131
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV r.
scant to an Order or Final dg-
mn.nt dated MAY 14, 1982, and
entered in Civil Action Case No.
82.7621 of the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and
for Dade County, Florida, wherein
CARNEGIE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff, and FRANK PETTY,
Defendant, 1 will sell to the highest
and best bidder for cash in the
lobby at the South front door of
the Dade County Courthouse in
Miami, Dade County, Florida at
11,00 o'clock A.M., on the 16 day
of JUNE, 1982, the following
described property ns set forth in
said Order or Final Judgment, to
wit:
Lot 20, Block 2 of HIGHRIbGE
PARK. per Plat thereof,
recorded in Plat Book 17 at
Page 5 of the Public Records
of Dade County, Florida;
together with the Improve•
ments thereon. Also known
as 2351 N.E. 56th Street,
Miami, Florida.
Dated this 1 day of JUNE, 1982.
RICHARD P. BRINKER
Clerk of said Circuit Court
(Circuit Court Seal)
by C. STAFFORD
Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Plaintiff
Burton Engels
25 W. Flagler St.
Miami, Fla. 33130
373.4713
First publication of this notice
on the 2 day of June, 1982.
612.9 M82-060288
NOTICE OF SALE
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 45
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR DADE
COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 82.1740
Section 30
FLAGLER FEDERAL SAVINGS
AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF
MIAMI
Plaintiff
vs
CRAIG A. CARAGLIOR, et al.
Defendants
:SAM FRANK
Crossplaintiff
vs
CRAIG A. CARAGLIOR and
BERNADETTE J. CARAGLIOR,
his wife
Crossdefendants
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pur
suant to an Order or Final Judg
ment dated MAY 13, 1982, anc
entered in Civil Action Case No
82.1740 of the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in anc
for Dade County, Florida, whereir
FLAGLER FEDERAL SAVING:
AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF
IdIAMI, Plaintiff, and CRAIG A
CARAGLIOR, at al., Defendants
and SAM FRANK, Crossplaintiff
and CRAIG A. CARAGLIOR anc
BERNADETTE J. CARAGLIOR, hi:
wife, Crossdefendants, I will set
to the highest and best bidder to
cash in the lobby at the Soutt
front door of the Dade Count,
Courthouse in Miami, Dade Coun
ly, Florida at 11:00 o'clock A.M.
on the 16 day of JUNE, 1982, thi
following described property a
set forth in said Order or Fino
Judgment, to wit:
Condominium Parcel des
ignated 9712 NW 5th Lane
Miami, Florida, located i
Building No. 54, of EAST WINI
LAKE VILLAGE CONDOMIh
IUM together with a
undivided interest as Tanar
In Common in the Commo
Elements and the Limite
Common Elements appw
tenant thereto according It
the Declaration of Condomif
ium thereof as recorded in 0.1
Book 9546, at Page 500, an
Condominium Plan Book 61
al Page 1, and amended b
Amendment No. 1 as trecorda
under Clerk's File N4
77R3775, Amendment No.
as recorded under Clerk's FII
No. 77R•30889, Amend101
No. 3 as recorded unelr
NOTICE OF SALE
aUNSUANt 10 CHAPtEi148
d THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR
DADE COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 81.186
Section 10
,ASIS, A CONDOMINIUM ASSO•
CIATION, INC.
Plaintiff
.vs-
URIEL OQUENbO alkle URIEL
OUENDO, a single man
Defendant
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pur•
uant to an Order or Final Judg-
1en1 dated MAY 13, 1982, and
ntered in Civil Action Case No.
1.186 of the Circuit Court of the.
1eventh Judicial Circuit in and
x Dade County, Florida, wherein
)ASIS, A CONDOMINIUM ASSO•
;IATION, INC. Plaintiff and URIEL
)OUENDO We URIEL QUENDO,
i single man Defendant, I will sell
o the highest and best bidder for
;ash in the lobby at the South
ront door of the Dade County
:ourthouse in Miami, Dade Coun-
y, Florida at 11:00 o'clock A.M.
in the 16 day of JUNE, 1982, the
ollowing described property as
let forth in said Order or Final
ludgment, to wit:
Unit No. G•7 of OASIS NUM.
BER TWO, A CONDOMINIUM,
according to the Declaration
of Condominium thereof,
recorded in Official Records
Book 9236 at Page 292 of the
Public Records of Dade Coun-
ty, Florida.
DATED this 1 day of JUNE, 1982.
RICHARD R BRINKER
Clerk of said Circuit Court
Circuit Court Seal)
by C. Stafford
Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Plaintiff
Edward S. Polk
6520 N. Andrews Ave.
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 33134
944.2926
First publication of this notice
on the 2 day of June, 1982.
612-9 M82.060279
NOTICE OF SALE
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 45
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR DADE
COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 81.16874
SECTION 26
LANDMARK CONCRETE, INC., a
Florida corporation,
Plaintiff
-vs.
ALFREDO MUJICA and BERTA
MUJICA, his wife, at al.,
Defendants
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pur-
suant to an Order or Final Judg-
ment dated MAY 10, 1982, and
entered in Civil Action Case No.
81.16874 of the Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and
for Dade County, Florida, wherein
LANDMARK CONCRETE, INC., a
Florida corporation, Plaintiff, and
ALFREDO MUJICA and BERTA
MUJICA, his wife, at al., Defend.
ants, I will sell to the highest and
best bidder for cash in the lobby
at the South front door of the Dade
County Courthouse in Miami, Dade
County, Florida at 11:00 o'clock
A.M., on the 16th day of JUNE,
1982, the following described prop
erty as set forth in said Order or
Final Judgment, to wit:
Lot 7, Block 5, MAYSLAND
SUBDIVISION, according to
the Plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 10 at Page 1 of i
the Public Records of Dade 1
County, Florida, aikla 2800 1
Northwest 151h Street, Miami, I
Florida. t
Dated this 1st day of June, 1982
RICHARD P. BRINKER
Clerk of said Circuit Court
(Circuit Court Seal)
by Suzanne Rupena
Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Plaintiff
CHAP P. Pl1GATCH, g69.
Coope1Shahadv. Frazier & Prk+afd
To! Howard V. Gary A I E April 14, 1982 LE:
:Ro`A:
Planning and Zoning Boards
Administration Department
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - RECOMMENDED DENIAL _
ARTICLE XXXI, VARIANCES
- F- G. COMMISSION AGENDA - April 22, 1982
PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
•.Ct._su�Rc-s:
The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of March 17, 1982, Item 2,
following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 19-82 by a 4 to 3
vote, RECOMMENDING DENIAL of amending Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE XXXI, VARIANCES,
Section 6 Appeals from Decisions of Zoning Board, paragraph (2) by providing
that persons aggrieved by City Commission action may seek recourse to the
courts by filing for a Writ of Ceriorari, as per the attached.
An ORDINANCE to provide for this has been prepared by the City Attorney's office
and submitted for consideration by the City Commission.
AEPL: me
cc: Law Department
NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: APPROVAL.
9430
"U
Howard V. Gary January 6, 1982 1`
City Manager Agenda Item 8
City Commission Meeting on
/„ j,`���a�� Planning and Zoning: February 25,1982
JctAOW. McManus Discussion Item: Appeal Fees
ing Director
Planning Department
Discussion during the City Commission
meeting on Planning and Zoning: December
15, 1981 centered on fees being charged
for appeals. This memorandum discusses
the current procedures and recommends
continuation of existing procedures.
Background
During the City Commission meeting on Planning and Zoning:
December 15, 1981 the Commission discussed fees being charged
for appeals and requested further information on the subject.
Existing Procedure
For appeals for both variances and conditional uses the existing
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 6871 language states (in part):
ARTICLE XXXI VARIANCES; Section 6
ARTICLE XXXII CONDITIONAL USE; Section 4
Appeals From Decisions of Zoning Board
"(1) Decisions of the Zoning Board shall be deemed
final unless a request is filed together witlthe
payment of any required fee with -the Departmeht
of Administration for Planning and Zoning Boards
y the petitioner or by anyperson or persons,
jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision
of the Zoning Board, or by any officer, depart-
ment, board, commission, or bureau of the City
within fifteen (15) days from the date of such
Board decision requesting the City Commission
to review such decision..."(following language
omitted)
(underlining added)
94�0
M A 3 0
Howard V. Gary
City Manager
Page 2
January 6, 1932
The City Code sets forth the fees or alternative procedures,
as follows:
Section 62-62 Request for Review
"All requests for review of decisions of the zoning
board under ARTICLE XXXI, Section 6 and ARTICLE XXXII
Section 4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Ordi-
nance No. 6871 of the city, except those requests for
review initiated by an agency of the city shall be
accompanied by a fee which shall be the equivalent
of the fee originally charged the applicant as set
out in Section 62-61, with a maximum fee per review
request of five hundred dollars ($500.000); provided,
if ten (10) percent of the owners in fact of property
within three hundred seventy-five (375) feet of a prop-
erty involved in a decision of the zoning board shall
in writing request review within the time limits set
out, then no fee shall be charged as a prerequisite to
consideration by the city commission of the request
for review." (underlining added)
(additional language omitted)
Analysis
For appeals from Zoning Board decisions:
1. A fee of up to $500 is charged to a single petitioner.
This fee deters frivolous appeals designed to delay a
project.
2. No fee is charged where aggrieved neighbors can collect
the signatures of 100 of property owners within 375 feet
of the subject property. This fee waiver allows con-
cerned neighbors to carry an appeal without a finan-
cial burden.
9 4 R
Howard V. Gary
City Manager
Page 3
January 6, 1982
3. No fee is charged city agencies. This allows
the Commission to hear staff objections with-
out penalizing the concerned department.
Recommendation
The Planning Department recommends continuation of the existing
appeal fee procedures as being fair and equitable, without pen-
alizing neighborhood groups, while detering frivolous appeals.
9430
PLANNING FACT SHEET
APPLICANT City of Miami Law Department! February 9, 1982
PETITION 2) Consideration of an Ordinance amending Com-
prehensive Zoning Ordinance 6871 as amended,
by amending Ordinance 8198, ARTICLE XXXI
VARIANCES, Section 6 Appeals From Decisions
of Zoning Board, paragraph (2) by providing
that persons aggrieved by any action of the
City Commission may seek recourse to the
courts by filing a petition for issuance
of a Writ of Certiorari in the manner and
within the time provided by Florida appellate
rules; deleting the phrase "may seek re-
course to the courts as provided by the laws
of Florida"; repealing all ordinances, codes,
sections and parts thereof in conflict; and
containing a severability provision.
REQUEST To specify the legal recourse for persons ag-
grieved by an action of the City Commission
concerning variances.
ANALYSIS Persons aggrieved by an action of the City
Commission concerning variances now "may
seek recourse to the courts as provided by
the laws of Florida". A recent court de-
cesion has held this phrase to be ambiguous
and allowed an aggrieved party to choose
the recourse. This proposed amendment -
specifies the recourse i.e. petition for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.
RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: RECOMMENDED DENIAL AT THEIR 3/17/82
MEETING BY A VOTE OF 4-3•
14 0
To! Howard V. Gary A I E April 14, 1982 LE:
:Ro`A:
Planning and Zoning Boards
Administration Department
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - RECOMMENDED DENIAL _
ARTICLE XXXI, VARIANCES
- F- G. COMMISSION AGENDA - April 22, 1982
PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
•.Ct._su�Rc-s:
The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of March 17, 1982, Item 2,
following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 19-82 by a 4 to 3
vote, RECOMMENDING DENIAL of amending Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE XXXI, VARIANCES,
Section 6 Appeals from Decisions of Zoning Board, paragraph (2) by providing
that persons aggrieved by City Commission action may seek recourse to the
courts by filing for a Writ of Ceriorari, as per the attached.
An ORDINANCE to provide for this has been prepared by the City Attorney's office
and submitted for consideration by the City Commission.
AEPL: me
cc: Law Department
NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: APPROVAL.
9430