Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal LetterMarch 20, 2008 City of Miami Zoning Board 444 SW 2nd .Avenue, 7th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Miami City Commission 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 RE: Notice of Appeal from Decision of Zoning Board ReveslTovar Residence Case No. 08-00153v Item No. Z.6 1520 NW 24th Avenue Miami, Florida Dear Sir or Madame: MR 2:22 The undersigned represents Ms. Ivelisse Reyes -Tavar regarding the captioned property. Please consider this her Notice of Appeal of the decision of the Zoning Board on the captioned petition which occurred on March 10, 2008. The grounds for the appeal are as follows: (I) The Zoning Board did not have all of the documents filed before when it considered the application. Specifically, the Board could not locate a copy of the original survey which had been timely filed. In addition; the Assistant City Attorney on duty that evening could not locate copies of the undersigned's letter with supporting documents that included the lobbyist registration forms. Without these documents the Board did not have the information necessary to render a just decision on the substance of the matters. (2) The applicant did not receive a fair hearing because members of the Board walked out during the hearing and failed to hear all of the information presented. Members of the Board also began verbally- fighting with each other with members leaving and returning to participate in the verbal jousting. The end result was that members voted to go against each other and not on the basis of the merits of the applicant's case, (3) The legal requirements of the hearing were violated. At one point during the presentation and consideration of the case, the Board did not have a quorum. Several members left and were not present when a motion was made. Some members returned without being present when the motion was made, and then voted against other members without knowing what they were voting for the purposes of opposing other rncmbers_ Thc end result was a deadioc and a gross iage of the due process rights of the applicant, rc public display was so egregious and ps ie tag that at least one member noted and stated that the applicant had not received a fair hearing. (4) The Board failed to find that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to this property- that warrant granting of the special exception. The structure is c-omprised of a single family dwelling which was originally built in 1935 in its present location. The house is part of"KAYS GROVE' which was platted by \ 'illiam E. Kay in 1925 and constitutes one of the more historic neighborhoods of Miami. The property appears to have only been transferred twice. The original .owner kept the property from 1935 u.ntii her death in the early 1990s. The Estate then transferred the property to Walter Urquiza, who subsequently sold it to Ms. Reyes-Tovar, its present owner. The construction was completed years before the present zoning code came into effect and represents setbacks consistent with structures being built at the time. The rear wall of the house has a setback of 7 feet which is similar to other structures in the area. (5) The Board failed to find that special conditions were not caused by Ms. Reyes- Tovar since the structure was built in 1935 and has not been modified. Ms. Reyes-Tovar has never modified the structure since her purchase in 2004. (6) The Board failed to find that literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning code would cause unnecessary and undue hardship on the petitioner since the present setback would deprive her of thirteen feet all across her home. In essence, the setback would be in the middle of Ms. Reyes -Tovar's kitchen, This would be unfair since the City has had 73 years to find that a violation exists. Furthermore, the prior owner pulled permits for minor work which were granted without any allegation that a violation existed. (7) The Board failed to consider and find that granting this variance would convey the same treatment to this owner as others in the area since several properties exist with similar setbacks, all built many years before the present zoning code. (8) The Board failed to consider that the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land since the variance would in effect permit what has actually- been there for the past 70 plus years. The variance does not request permission for new construction beyond zoned setbacks; the variance requests legal acceptance of the historic setbacks for this home. (9) The Board failed to find that the grant of the variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this zoning ordinance, and is not injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare for several reasons. First, the home was actually one of the original structures in the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood was defined in part by this home and other similar structures. Other homes in the area are also set back from the front of the property and the overall footprint of this home is in fact smaller than neighboring structures so that there is preservation of green areas on the lot consistent with the intent of present zoning. We respectfully request that this appeal be duly noted and scheduled in accordance with all applicable laws. In the event that any aspect of this notice of appeal is deemed legally or factually insufficient, the undersigned respectfully requests that the City immediately notify the undersigned so that any deficiency can be corrected on a timely basis.