HomeMy WebLinkAboutPre-publication Submittal Email Objection to AppealTibbs, Christine H.
From: Zamora, Olga
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 2:42 PM
To: wesley.hevia@akerman.com
Cc: Mendez, Victoria; Tibbs, Christine H.
Subject: RE: Objection to Sylvester Appeal of Mural Transfer
Attachments: MX-M464N_20180828_122122.pdf
Hello Mr. Hevia,
The appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Commission on October 25, 2018 sometime after 2 pm.
Your email and correspondence to Hearing Boards will be included as part of the agenda packet for the appeal.
The decision to either grant or deny the appeal will the made by the City Commission.
Many thanks,
Olga
From: wesley.hevia@akerman.com[mailto:wesley.hevia@akerman.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 9:32 AM
To: Zamora, Olga <OZamora@miamigov.com>
Cc: Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com>; hearingboards@miamigov.com
Subject: Objection to Sylvester Appeal of Mural Transfer
Dear Ms. Zamora:
We represent Becker Boards Miami, LLC, ("Becker Boards"), who recently received Office of Zoning approval to transfer
a mural permit to 70 NW 37th Street (the "Approval"). On August 28, 2018, Mr. Phillip Sylvester filed the attached Notice
of Appeal with the Office of Hearing Boards seeking to challenge the Approval (the "Appeal").
The Appeal is deficient for the following threshold reasons:
1. No Basis for Appeal Stated. The Appeal generally alleges that Becker Boards is in violation of the City Code, but
does not say which sections of the code were violated, and does not allege any facts in support of its assertion.
Rather, the Appeal merely states that "I look forward to detailing these reasons... in person at the Appeal
Hearing." It is unclear whether "these reasons" are even related to the Approval subject to the Appeal.
Moreover, due process requires that appellants state their basis for appeal so that appellees have notice of
claims affecting their interests and are afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond.
2. Improper Procedure. The Appeal was filed under Section 62-620(f) of the City Code and purports to be related to
a PZAB decision (see page 3 of the Appeal package). However, the Approval does not relate to a PZAB decision
and is not subject to Section 62-620(f) of the City Code.
Given the foregoing deficiencies, we request that the Appeal be rejected.
We request to be included in all future correspondence concerning the Appeal, and any related correspondence.
1
Sincerely,
Wesley Hevia
Associate
Akerman LLP 198 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100 I Miami, FL 33131
D: 305 982 5525
wesley.hevia@akerman.com
vCard 1 Profile
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
2