Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Letter• ✓, 4. 1790 WEST 49111 STREET SUITE 300 geakaA, giooaa 3S012 (305) 566.4986 FAX (305) 524.1763 October 6, 2003 Ms. Teresita Lascaibar Fernandez, R.A., A.I.C.P. Chief, Office of Hearing Boards City of Miami 444 SW 2°d Avenue, 7'h Floor Miami, FL 33130 Hand Delivered RE: Appeal of Decision of Zoning Board on September 22, 2003 for Zoning Variance regarding 2136 N.W. 18th Street, Miami, Florida 33125. Appellant/Property Owner: Ada V. Cardona Zoning District: Duplex Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 3 OCOEE PARK Subdivision, PB 2/Pg 100, Miami -Dade County, Florida Dear Ms. Fernandez: I represent Ada V. Cardona, who is the owner of the property located at 2136 N.W. 18(h Street, Miami, Florida 33125. The subject property is the Homestead of the appellant, and she has continuously resided on the property since her purchase on November 15, 1989. This correspondence will serve as my client's notice of appeal pursuant to Articles 18 and 20 of the zoning code of the City of Miami from the evenly divided (4 in favor and 4 against) decision of the City's Zoning Board on September 22, 2003, that in effect serves as a denial of my client's zoning variance application to adjust the rear setback of her property to 5' feet where 20' feet are required. My client, the appellant/property owner is aggrieved by the staffs recommendation for denial and the evenly divided decision of the City of Miami Zoning Board. Said denials will result in an unnecessary and undue hardship on the appellant/property owner and her homestead will be substantially affected. In addition, these denials constitute fundamental error and are the basis of this appeal to the City Commission. The grounds for this appeal are as follows: 1. Along with her variance application the appellant/property owner submitted a complete set of plans, drawings and survey of the subject property and 1 structures therein as prepared by Jose A. Martinez & Associates, Civil and Structural Engineer. Said set of plans have been received and accepted as complete by the City's building department. a. The survey and building plans demonstrate that the subdivision of OCOEE PARK, since its initial platting is not equi-dimensional but askwed and therefore the lots in Block 3 of the. subdivision including the subject property at Lot 5 cannot be squared off to allow for equidistant measurements of the structures built on the subject property. b. These facts along with the evidence on the record demonstrate that special conditions and circumstances exist which arc peculiar to the land or building involved, not applicable to other lands in the zoning district, and said special circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant/property owner (Sections 1903.2 (a) and (b) City of Miami Zoning Code). 2. Contained in the plans and survey referenced above (paragraph 1) is a zoning legend that describes in pertinent part that: a. The net lot area of the property is 5,583 sq. fl. (5,000 sq. ft. required). b. The structural addition to the existing building consists of a 148.5 playroom area and a 365.7' roof over an open terrace for a combined 514.2' sq. ft. addition. c. Even when adding these additional 514.2' sq. ft. playroom and roof, the floor area ratio is only 2,723.6 sq. ft. (below the 4,129.8 sq. ft./ 60% allowed) and the building front print will also be 2,723.6 sq. ft. (below the 2,753.2' / 40% allowed). d. It is to be noted that the requested 5' rear setback variance is really only required for the portion of the playroom addition that extends along the western boundaries to the rear of the property. The eastern boundaries where the open terrace and roof lie will continue to have a rear set back of 20 feet. e. The additional playroom and roof cover are designed to continue along the existing one story building structure. These facts and the evidence on the record as described in paragraph 2 (a) thru (e) above demonstrate that the variance requested by the appellant/property owner, is the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land and building by the appellant/property owner. It should be pointed out that no variance of front or side setbacks on the property are required or sought by the appellant/property owner (Section 1903.2 (e) city of Miami Zoning Code). 2 3. The appellant/property owner introduced into evidence as part of the records at the September 22, 2003 Zoning Board hearing a copy of City of Miami Building Permit No. 91-5975. a. City of Miami Building Permit No. 91-5975 describes the issuance and approval by the City of an after the fact building permit for a two story detached addition on Lot 4, the property adjacent to the East of the subject property on appeal herein. This two story addition, upon completion also had askwed rear set back adjustments. 4. The appellant/homeowner introduced as evidence into the record correspondence from Jose A. Martinez, P.E., Civil Structural Engineer and NELCO Testing and Engineering attesting to the fact the playroom and roof addition built without the benefit of building permits are structurally sound and satisfy the requirements of the Building Code. 5. The appellant/property owner introduced into evidence as part of the record at the September 22, 2003 Zoning Board hearing, the petitions signed by the record property owners on each of the properties adjacent to appellant/homeowner's property to the East (Lot 4), West (Lot 6) and South (Lots 21, 22 and 23) consenting and waiving any objections to appellant/homeowner's requested variance. The evidence presented as described in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 above demonstrate that grating the variance requested by appellant/homeowner conveys to her the same treatment as to the owner of other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district and that granting the requested variance is in harmony with the intent of the applicable zoning ordinance and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare (Sections 1903.2 (c), (d) and (f) of the City of Miami Zoning code). The motion, duly seconded, by the Zoning Board to approve appellant/homeowner's variance request recognized that the facts and evidence described in this notice of appeal constituted substantial competent evidence that appellant/homeowner was entitled to the variance sought and that every mitigating measure offset the impact of the relaxed zoning requirements would be taken by requiring compliance with the building specifications submitted. This condition was accepted by the appellant/homeowner as part of the record at the hearing. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant, Ada 1. Cardona the applicant/property owner, through her undersigned counsel, hereby appeals the evenly divided (4 in favor and 4 against) decision of the City of Miami Zoning Board, in effect denying her request for a zoning variance reducing the rear setback from 20 feet to 5 feet. 3 It is hereby requested also, that the complete file, building plans, and the evidence introduced as part of the record at the September 22, 2003 hearing be transmitted along with this notice of appeal. Furthermore, Ada I. Cardona, the appellant/property owner reserves her right to supplement this appeal letter with further evidence prior to or at the time this appeal is concluded by the City Commission. Sincerely, Luciano Isla, Esq. LI/jm cc: Ms. Ada V. Cardona 4