HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal LetterMARK AI- LEVIN11*
BARBARA AMARO
Teresa Fernandez
City of Miami Hearing Boards
444 SW 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
LAW OFFICES
MARK ALAN LEVL E
2M0 SOUTH DIXJE HIGHWAY
SUITE 102
MIAMI, FLORIDA 331.33
(.305) 8a4-3300
November 13, 2006
ALSO MEMBER OF THE BAR IN
NEW YORK AND
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Re: Appeal of Zoning Board Action: Legistar
File Number : 06-01640X
Item Number Z.11 on October 30, 2006
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
On behalf of Lilliana Murillo who on behalf of Christopher Kwangwari,
owner, hereby files this appeal of the Zoning Board's actions on October 30, 2006
pursuant to Section 2001 of the Miami Zoning ordinance. The application was
recommended for approval by the Planning Department based upon its findings
subject to certain conditions. The conditions were amenable by the applicant.
However, at the zoning board meeting there was a vote of 4-3 to deny the
application.
We believe the Zoning Board was not properly apprised of the
circumstances and testimony from some of the neighbors was incorrect and
misleading. The hearing did not transpire until 10:00 p.m. and one of the board
members had already left. The applicant was not given a full and fair
opportunity to present its case. If given that opportunity, the applicant would
have demonstrated the application was to obtain a special exception to allow the
sale of used automobiles on the location in question. The applicant received a
violation for not having an occupational license or certificate of use. Therefore,
an exception was applied for.
The area in question is a complete commercial and light industrial area.
The intended use is simply to sell used cars. The exception to allow for the sale
of used cars totally comports with this area. A neighbor testified at the hearing
that there were tow trucks going up and down the street and that cars were
parked all along N.E. 22nd Street and 23rd Street. However, there was no proof of
any of these allegations. The applicant was denied a full opportunity to refute
those unsubstantiated allegations. It should be noted
that the applicant does not have any tow trucks. There was a tow truck company
that leased the adjacent property but has since moved. Perhaps the neighbors
Teresa Fernandez
City of Miami Hearing Boards
November 13, 2006
Page Two
were confusing the next door property with this property. The intended use of
the property does not pose any safety or danger issues.
The cars parked on N.E. 22"d Street or N.E. 23rd Street or 2"d Avenue are not
the property of the owner or any tenant. This area is constantly patrolled by
tow truck companies, in particular Molina Towing, looking for improperly and
unauthorized cars to tow. The applicant encourages this activity. Near the
streets that we described there is an import/export company that deals in cars
as well as marble. There is heavy traffic as a result of that entity. The
import/export business at the end of N.E. 22" and 23rd Street has approximately
between 300 and 400 cars.
The property which is the subject of the appeal exception is extremely
large and would accommodate the cars contemplated by the applicant. There
is no need to park on the street or cause any undue congestion. The lot is
fenced and the cars need to be placed within the fenced structure to comply
with the applicant's insurance policy. No cars at any time are parked on the
street as alleged by the neighbors.
As mentioned, the Planning Department after conducting its investigation
issued their findings of fact and recommended approval of the application with
the conditions of new landscaping, paint and sign specifications and no flags or
banners. As previously mentioned, the applicant is amenable to the conditions.
As a result, this application should have been approved and we ask the appeals
board to overturn the denial and issue an approval of the application.
Additionally, it should be noted that one of the members of the Board
suggested that the application be approved and a review every twelve months
to make sure that the applicant is complying with the conditions as well as
serving the needs of the community. This seemed to be a reasonable alternative
to the denial.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your earliest
convenience.
Mark Alan LeVine, Esq.
MAL/gi