HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppellant Case SummaryTo: The Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Miami 2-12--04
CASE SUMMARY
Appeal of the City of Miami Zoning Board's 12-15-03 decision
allowing a variance at 3689 Loquat Avenue which reduces
the side street setback from 15 feet to 10 feet.
We, the appellants, Glenn Terry, Reginald F. Nicholson, Manuella Jaramiilo,
James Goff, Ronald and Sharon Sprake, Thomas Scolaro, Curtis and Marilyn
Garbett, and, Peter and Honore Steedman, file this summary and ask the
Members of the Miami City Commission to deny the Mr. Karim Bayzid's ,
request for a variance.
FACTS: Karim Bayzid and his father, Nader Bayzid (doing business respectfully
as "Atica Properties LLC" and "Solveig One LLC"), purchased the four lots on
the NE corner of Douglas Road and Loquat Avenue in August, 2003. They
intend to demolish the existing house and to build several houses on the site.
Karim Bayzid is the project's architect. He has shown us, the appellants, his
design for four houses which will front on Loquat Avenue. There is one on each
of the four lots (numbered on the Plat 1,2,3 and 4, see Diagram uA").
ten foot strip owned
by the City
ten foot strip dedicated
for public purposes
Diagram A
dint 4VE.
•�
�
1r
LOT
car
LOT
4
1 j
r 1...
0
.
//
:I
t;
5C'
50'
0'
L oQU 9T Ave.
All of the lots are "buildable", large enough meet the lot size required by the
City for a house.
Mr. Karim Bayzid ("Petitioner") petitioned our City's Zoning Board for a
variance so that the Douglas Road side street setback for Lot #1 would be
reduced from 15' to 10 `. This would allow a larger house to be built on Lot #1
(Lot #1 is smaller than the other three. Because it extends all the way to
Douglas Road, the City owns or controls the west 20 feet). The Board granted
his request for a variance at their December 15, 2003 meeting agreeing with the
Petitioner that only having space for a small house would be "a hardship".
ARGUEMENTS : 1. The Petitioner, Karim Bayzid, has failed to meet the six
requirements required by section 1903.1 of our City's code in that
a) there is no hardship or no special conditions or circumstances. While Lot #1
is smaller than the others and has a side street setback (by virtue of it being
the only one on a side street), Mr. K. Bayzid purchased knowing its size,
setbacks and other obvious building limitations.
b) Mr_ K. Bayzid has not suffered any undue hardship as a result of his
purchasing Lot #1. He purchased a buildable lot . The purchase price
reflected the property's limitations. He now has the same rights as anyone
buying a similar piece of property of the same size with the same zoning
setbacks.
c) Any alleged "hardship" was self-created by the Petitioner, i.e., Mr. Bayzid's
desire to build a house larger than the property's size allows.
d) The granting of this variance would not be in harmony with the general
intent and purpose of this zoning ordinance. It is injurious to the
neighborhood in that it,
1) reduces the setback between the proposed house and Douglas Road.
Said space is provided for in our zoning ordinances so as to provide a
"buffer zone" between the house and the public space next to it.
2) would create more of a depressing "wall effect" next to the busy
thoroughfare, Douglas Road, and
3) reduces the setback area needed for trees that will provide a natural
transition between the petitioner's project and Douglas Road.
In short, granting the Petitioner his variance would create an undue
hardship on the neighborhood and the public passing by on Douglas Road.
2. ALTERNATIVES- Karim Bayzid's Lot #1 is "buildable", he can build a
narrow house on Lot #1.
If he chooses not to build the narrow house allowed, there are many
alternatives to a variance that he can easily pursue.
As he and his father are developing the lots together, they could
a) Build one house on Lots 1 and 2 (and two on 3 & 4) as seen in Diagram
b) Create a Unity of Title building four houses on land held in common (see
Diagram "C"), or,
c) Have the four lots re -platted as illustrated in Diagram "D". In this
configuration the developers could build four houses without resorting to
building one that is narrow (see Lot 1 on Diagram "A").
,4
Diagram B
4
1
E
,1/fev five
Diagram D
3. PROPOSED VARIANCE RESTRICTIONS- If the City Commission should
choose to reject our arguments and to grant the variance, we ask that,
a) The variance include a restriction which would prohibit the
Petitioner from extending his structure into the remaining 10 foot setback in
any possible way. This would include roof overhangs and any possible
structural extensions, and,
b) The implementation of the variance be delayed for two weeks, having it
conditional upon the Petitioner getting an approved landscape plan from the
City's Department of Planning and Zoning, a plan that will reduce the
negative impact of the Petitioner's expanding his structure onto the land,
dedicated to the public good, next to it.
CONCLUSION: Mr. Karim Bayzid purchased Lot #1 knowing full well its
limitations. He does not need a variance to build a house on this property.
There is no "undue hardship. He is only asking for a variance to enhance
the value of his property.
If the variance is allowed, Mr. Bayzid's proposed structure will cause a
hardship to the neighborhood and the public at large as the wider house will
allow less room landscaping in the setback area. It will also reduce the
"buffer zone" needed for a future sidewalk, swale area, and additional
landscaping along Douglas Road.
For these reasons, the City Commission should deny the Petitioner's
request for a variance.
Respectfully submitted by Glenn Terry,
representing himself and the other appellants,
3659 Loquat Ave., Miami. FL 33133 305-441-8511