Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal LetterRE App01100 InfOrmatien ,Gebrges Williamfas President of 3G Investment Group, Eir5t.Ala me: • Last Narne: Property Address: 4600i NE 2 Avenue Cty IVii.arni. State: FL. Zip Code: •PhOr.ile #:, 305-57677768 Email: gwilliath46@gmaiLcom f- or Case. 41: • ..g.c?'„afcti:'11ketingl'Iled. Light:ic;64.110/1-JE.P. i. .Please sea attadhpd Notige of A eal from Ma 3 201.6 hearin of the Hiatoricland Environmental Preservation Board- .. - . . 1 . . .. -.,, ..., ' - .,... , .• . , r. ARA xAmA.Ar.A. rAAA A s A•AA.r AA, Office 1.,.).6-;,'Oniy i i • R:64:eived B• jr. ....... i Date'. ,, I Titrie: ................................ .6v • Law Office of Roland C. Robinson 633 N. Krome Avenue, Suite 2 Homestead, Florida 33030 Tel.: 305-285-0340 Fax: 305-285-0059 rrobin5529@aol.com City of Miami Commission May 17, 2016 c/o Hearing Boards 444 SW 2 Avenue 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Notice of Appeal pursuant to Section 23-4(c) of the City of Miami Code This Notice of Appeal is filed on behalf of Georges William, as president of 3G Investment Group, Inc., the owner of the property located at 4600 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33137. On May 3, 2016, the City of Miami's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board convened a meeting where they considered HEPB.1 15-01641: a Resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board approving or denying the reclassification of structures within the Buena Vista East Historic District by changing the status of contributing and non-contributing properties located within the district "A". The applicant was the City of Miami, Historic Preservation Office and the resolution was supported through a Staff Report & Recommendation, a copy which was attached to the meeting agenda. The staff report noted that at "the time of the historic designation in 1987 there were 103 buildings that were considered non-contributing to the character of the district for not being 50 years old at the time and others by mistake, because they met the criteria in 1987 and were left out for undetermined reasons". The subject building was built in 1925 and was well over 50 years old at the time of the original designation in 1987. In spite of its age, the building was determined at that time to be non- contributing. In fact, virtually no commercial properties were determined at that time to be contributing. The staff report further provided that the "103 buildings to have their status changed from non- contributing to contributing were designed in the Mission, Bungalow, Ranch, Minimal Traditional, Mid Century Modern, Modern, and Vernacular architectural styles". None of these styles are attributed to the subject property. The staff report then set forth an excerpt from the 1987 Designation Report which provided: "[t]he area, however, soon became the mecca of businessmen who traded in the nearby commercial establishments on NE 40th Street and built homes to match their rising social status. Their houses reflect the eclectism that dominated American residential architecture in the early twentieth century" (Emphasis added by City of Miami Planning Department, Preservation Officer). Clearly the 1987 Designation Report intended for the district to concern itself with houses, homes and residences with distinctive architecture rather than commercial properties. The decision to include the subject property in the list of properties proposed to be converted to "contributing" is both arbitrary and capricious and not supported by competent substantial evidence. This fact is evident in the simple observation that the Staff's exhibit to its report identifies about 288 buildings with over twenty (20) distinct architectural styles yet fails to attribute any style whatsoever (other than perhaps "commercial") to the subject property. Further the report provides a single photograph of the property that is less fifteen years old dating from a time far more recent than the 1987 Designation Report itself. The Board had no basis in law or fact to approve a change in designation. Appellant hereby files this Appeal to the City Commission based on procedural and substantive grounds. Procedural Grounds This matter is not ripe for hearing by the City Commission. At its meeting on May 3, 2016, the Board failed to vote specifically on the subject property after stating it would address all properties that were represented at the meeting. Appellant requests this Commission to remand this matter back to the Board to be reheard by the Board and have the Board perform its function and take a definitive formal action approving or denying the designation. Substantive issues In the event that the city commission decides not to remand the matter back to the Board and wants to hear the merits of the designation, then Appellant raises the following substantive arguments: 1. The members who failed to vote for or against or to move for a decision for or against the inclusion of the subject property in the category of contributing properties based their vote or lack of vote on criterion and/or personal opinions which were not part of the criterion outlined in the Code; therefore, their decision to abstain from voting or to vote was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial competent evidence. 2. As to the various criteria to be used in supporting the designation for the subject property not a scintilla of evidence was presented. The only testimony presented was that of Georges William who testified that the character of the immediately adjacent area and that of the building was neither historic nor in harmony with the two substantial development projects to be built on both sides of the subject property and which was subject to review by the Board. This testimony was neither questioned nor refuted. The Board was not provided with any evidence whatsoever to sustain a vote to designate the subject property as contributing. 3. The Board's vote to designate over 100 properties as contributing without the benefit of any evidence is arbitrary and capricious, a violation of due process and amounts to an unlawful taking. If not remanded, at the "de novo" proceedings before the City Commission, Appellant will again demonstrate that there is a complete lack of substantial competent evidence to support a designation of "contributing" to the subject property. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. RespestfuJily yours, et Roland C. Robinson Joi d by: G rges William, as President of Invest nt Group, Inc. cc: Megan Schmitt, Preservation Officer Historic and Environmental Preservation Board City of Miami Planning Department 444 S. W. 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130