Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Letter & HEPB ResoWEISS SEROTA HELFMAN PASTORIZA COLE & BONISKE, P.L. MITCHELL BIERMAN, P.A. NINA L. BONISKE, P.A. MITCMELL J. BURNSTEIN, PA. JAMIE ALAN COLT, P.A. STEPHEN J. NELUMAN, PA. GILBERTO PASTORIZA, RA. MICHAEL S. POPOK, P.A. JOSEPH H. SEROTA, P.A. SUSAN L. TREVARTHEN, P.A RICHARD JAY WEISS, P.A. OAVID M. WOLPIN, PA. DANIEL L. ABBOTT GARY L. BROWN JCNATHAN M. COHEN IONACIO 0. DEL VALLS JEFFREY O. OECARLO ALAN L. GABRIEL DOUOLAS R. 'GONZALES EDWARO G. GIJEDES JOSHUA O. KRUT MATTHEW H. MANDEL ALEJCANDER L. PALENZUELA.MAURI ANTHONY L. RECIO BRETT J. SCHNEIVER CLIFFOR❑ A. SCHULMAN LAURA N. WENDELL JAMES E. WHITE VIA HAND DELIVERY ATTO R N EYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY INCLUOING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS MIAMI-PAVE OFFICE 2525 PONCE DE LEON BOULEVARD SUITE 700 CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 TELEPHONE 305-854-01300 FACSIMILE 305-854-2323 WWW,WSH-LAW.COM B ROWARD OFFICE 200 EAST BNOWARD BOULEVARD • SUITE 1900 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301 TELEPHONE 954-763-42d2 • FACS6MSLE 954-764-7770 Mr. Anel Rodriguez Hearing Boards City of Miami 444 SW 2„d Avenue, 71a Floor Miami, FL 33130 'OF COUNSEL May 15, 2012 ADRIAN J. ALVAREZ LILLIAN M. ARANGO SARA L. AULISIO ROBERT N. DE FL£SCO BROOKE P. DOLARA RAGUEL ELEJABARRIETA CNAO S. FRIEDMAN ERIC P. MOORMAN MARLENE SILVERN KENNEDY. IKAREN LIEBERMAN. JOHANNA N. LUNDGREN ALEIDA MARTINEZ MOLINA' KATHRYN M. ME'HAFFEY ROBERT A. MEYERS' MATTHEW PEARL TIMOTHY M. R4VICH' ANY J. SANTIAGO GALL D. SEROTA' JONATHAN C. SHAMRES ESTRELLITA S. SIBILA ALISON F. SMITH ANTHONY C. SOROXA EDUARDO N. SOTO JOANNA G. THORSON MICHELLE O. vOS PETER O, WALDMAN. SAMUEL I. ZESKINO Re: Notice of Appeal of HEPB Resolution No. 2012-21 (the "HEPE Decision"); 1001 NW North River Drive (the "Property") Dear Mr. Rodriguez: We represent Mr. Jay Meistrell, the owner of the Property that was the subject of the HEPB Decision which approved a Certificate of Appropriateness subject to conditions. A copy of the HEPB Decision is attached to this letter. The purpose of this letter is to appeal the imposition of condition nos. 1 and 2 of the HEPB Decision. The Certificate of Appropriateness was sought in connection with work performed to exterior elements of the house on the Property occasioned in part due to a Capital Improvements Project on North River Drive, As part of that project, the City's contractor was required to perform repairs and harmonization work to address damage to the Property and integrate the elevation changes to the right-of-way with the elevation of the Property. Damage and dust from the work resulted in the owner repainting the house. When it became apparent that the harmonization and repairs were not proceeding correctly, the owner installed a new driveway, decorative steps, and enclosed a garage door, all without permits. The work was limited to such Mr. Anel Rodriguez May [5, 2012 Pagel 2 exterior elements and the house was not altered in any other way. Although when perfbrrning the work he mistakenly believed that the work did not require a permit due to its nexus with the CIP project, he has since learned that permits were indeed required and has actively sought those permits. The Cenificate of Appropriateness was one of the required approvals. All told, from when the City's enforcement efforts against the work performed without a permit commenced in February, to the owner's filing of an application for Certificate of Appropriateness an March 23, the affair took a little over one month. The owner currently has one permit and is well into permitting on the other elements of the improvements to the property, paying double permit fees on account of having performed the work without permits. Despite quickly addressing the situation, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (the "Board") saw fit to punish the owner further by imposing the two conditions requiring the owner re -paint the house and demolish a portion of the new driveway. The grounds for this appeal include but are not limited to that the conditions are unduly onerous in requiring modifications not required by the building department, zoning department, or any other department, that their imposition was arbitrary and capricious in their being imposed as a form of punishment by the Board (a design -oriented body rather than a code enforcement body), that the conditions do not address identifiable criteria in the code, and that the conditions are not reasonably related to the governmental interest in historic preservation advanced by Chapter 23 and impose a burden on the owner out of proportion with any conceivable gain in advancing a potential state interest. See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Further, the criteria imposed in Section 23-6.2(h) are unconstitutionally vague and capable of inconsistent and arbitrary application, and the conditions imposed do not further any legitimate governmental interest that could be used to deny the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness. See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 L.S. 825 (1987). It should be noted that the Spring Garden Homeowners Association is in complete support of the improvements made to the Property, consider them to be enhancements to the neighborhood, and support issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness without conditions, Members of the Association and other neighbors voiced their support of the application to the Board. Nevertheless, the Board enacted these conditions largely based on their stated intent to send a message to the owner that his previous work without a permit was not to be tolerated. This type of posturing is clearly not the purpose for which the Board was created, and was outside of the purview delegated to them by the City Commission. We have submitted this letter pursuant to 23-6.2(e) of the Code, together with all applicable fees. Please schedule this item for a de novo hearing before. the City Commission at your earliest convenience. We seek issuance of the Certificate of Appropriate without condition nos. 1 and 2 described above. WEISS SEEoTA HELFMAN PASToRIZA COLE & BONISKE, Mr. Aries Rodriguez May 15, 2012 Pagel 3 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please call me if you have any questions.. Very truly yours, Tony Recio TR/ms 2308001 Attachments cc: Alex Adams, Preservation Officer Jay Meistrell WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN PASTORIZA COLE & BONISKE, P.L. CITY OF MIAMI HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD HEPB RESOLUTION 2012-21 5/1/2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD (' HEPB4) OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING COMPLETED WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS AND WITH CODE VIOLATIONS LOCATED AT 1001 NW NORTH RIVER DRIVE, SPRING GARDEN HISTORIC DISTRICT CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN CH 23 MIAMI CITY CODE. ITEM NO. 3 - OLD BUSINESS MOTION MADE BY NELSON DIAZ SECONDED SY DAVID FREEDMAN VOTE LIST: YES NO �,RECUSED ABSENT MR. WILLIAM HOPPER, CHAIRMAN) 0 ® ■ MR. GERALD MARSTON, .VICE CHAIRMAN ❑ 0 ■ ram+ MR. DAVID FREEDMAN ❑ 0 ❑ ■ MR_ GARY M. HECHT El" 0 0 0 MS. LYNN LEWIS 0 ® ■ ❑ MR. NELSON DIAZ ■ ❑ MR. JORGE KUPERMAN 1E1 0 0 0 MR. ROBERT GRABOSKI R ❑ ■ [] MR. HUGH RYAN ►Q 0 0 0 MR. TIMOTHY BARBER CI 0 0 0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 7 TO 2 CONDITIONS: 1. The house shall be repainted to meet an approved color found in the City of Miami's Guidelines for Historic Districts and Sites. 2. The driveway shall be reduced in size to allow drainage from the side yard to the street frontage and meet all side setback requirements of zoning. The maximum driveway width at the sidewalk shall be twelve feet (12') and the maximum driveway width at the house shall be eighteen feet (18'). 3 That the wall formerly the location of the rear garage door be improved with a faux wood treatment on the facade within the old garage opening. with final design details to be presented to the Preservation Officer. 4. That the applicant must obtain all electrical and building permits for completed work and must pay the double After -The -Fact fees for all permits. b. That the density of the property be consistent with that permitted under Miami 21 as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 6 A landscape plan shall be submitted to the Preservation Office. 7. A site plan shall be submitted to the Preservation Office that is drawn to scale, showing all revised dimensions of the proposed and completed work and the site grading proposed. 8 All future alterations to the exterior of the property shall be approved by the Preservation Office through the Certificate of Appropriateness process. Any revisions to this resolution will require HEPB action. ATTEST ALEXANDER ADAMS, PRESERVATION OFFICER LIAM E. HOPPER, CHAIRMAN