Baby, baby. Baby. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being
recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 one. >> Good morning. Welcome to uh the June 10th meeting of the board of adjustment. Um, so before we start, I just want to
welcome our newest member, Jeff Cinnamon, uh, who, uh, just joined today. So, welcome. Okay. So, um, I guess, uh, the first thing we have to do is take attendance. >> Yes, we'll take attendance and I'll do a
roll call. Uh, Chair Morlly is absent. Um, so, Miss Silverman um, is present >> here. Uh, and she'll be acting as the vice chair today. She's the vice chair, so she'll be acting as the chair of the meeting today. Uh, Mr. Simon,
>> present. >> Mr. Felig, >> here. >> Mr. Krennic, >> yep. >> Mr. Nagler, >> present. >> Uh, Mr. Silvers, >> here. >> Uh, we have six of seven members present, we do have a quorum. Um, and for those in the audience today, we do need five uh affirmative votes uh for
any variances today. >> Yeah. And with that in mind, I want to make one uh administrative point. So, one of our um uh members is um going to have to step out for a business uh urgent business matter that can't be delayed. Um and so because we're only
six today and we would need five um which would then be 100% of the panel to approve anything, we're going to take about a 10 or 15 minute recess while he steps out and then continue the meeting after that. So, that's just for everybody's information. Okay. So, next
any city updates that we need to talk about? Yes. Uh, >> no updates. >> Uh, good morning. Today's meeting of the board of adjustment is being conducted in a hybrid format with a quorum of the board physically present in the commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicants, staff, and members
of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. Those wishing to participate via Zoom may dial the toll-free number which is 877-853-5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 828-6961-5309 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID. Individuals wishing to
speak on an item must click the raise hand icon if using Zoom or dial star9 if participating by phone. Before I swear on those who are testifying, I'm going to read into the record the city's notice regarding lobbyist registration. If you are appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, including as an architect,
attorney, or representative of an applicant, or an objector, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office before speaking to the board. You do not have to register if you are speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party. You are testifying as an expert witness, providing only scientific, technical, or
other specialized information, or you are appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without compensation to express support for or opposition to any item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall, prior to appearing, disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principle
on whose behalf they are communicating. These rules apply whether you are appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage, defeat, modification, or continuence. I will now swear on everyone who is physically present in the commission chambers and intends to testify, virtual speakers will need to
be sworn in one by one. If you will be giving testimony, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will be giving is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, um, our colleague did step out, but we'll continue with some
administrative things and, uh, the request for continuence and then, um, if he's still not available, then we'll we'll stop for a short period of time. Um, so the first item is just to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Do I have a motion? >> Motion to approve.
>> So, second. >> Okay. So, we take a vote. >> Motion by that was a motion by Mr. Krennic, second by uh, Mr. Felig. Um, >> oh, I apologize, Mr. Silvers. Okay. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes.
>> Okay. >> Um so I guess the next thing we have to do is there's a um a request for a continuence um on the >> on the agenda. Yes. >> On the agenda. >> Yes. >> Um do you want to >> sure >> tee us up? >> This is uh ZBA22-0143.
It's for 125 through 153 Collins Avenue. It is an administrative appeal. um both uh interested parties uh would like to request a continuence. They are still actively uh negotiating a settlement between the two parties. They think that can be achieved. So they have actually
requested that the item be continued to the November 6th meeting. Um and so that's that's the update on that item. >> Does anybody have anything to ask or uh know about this that they don't already know?
>> Okay. So, do I have a um >> is there any public comment on this >> a motion to continue? >> Do you want >> I'm sorry. Do I have to ask the public? Yes. Go ahead. >> Um if public hearing if anybody's online uh or in person wishing to speak,
if I if I could be added as a presenter for Zoom, there's a panelist. >> No hands are raised. So no public no one from the public is here to speak on >> no one in the room. >> No >> anybody on the dis.
>> Okay. So then do I have a motion? >> Motion to approve the continuence. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Mr. Krennic and second by Mr. Sinaman. Um all those in favor? >> I motion passes.
>> Okay. The the next item that we have on the agenda is an administrative appeal. Um I believe uh we're going to get a quick update from the attorney. >> Good morning. >> For the record, my name is Carter McDow with Bill. >> One second, please. Do we want to pause
and wait for Dan to come back or >> I'm going to request that this matter be continued? So, okay. >> I think you can probably do it with what you have in front of you. Okay. >> If members here, >> uh my name is Carter McDow. with Bills and Tumbber. We our firm has withdrawn.
>> I I forgot to read the case number. Let me read that first and then I'll um so this is ZBA24-0161. It's 605 Lincoln Road, Unit 800 RF. Um, this is an application has been filed appealing an administrative decision of the planning director in connection with
zoning interpretation letter zone 123 1023-1191 regarding a determination that entertainment is not an approved use for the roof deck portion of the property located at 605 uh Lincoln Road. Uh, this appeal has been filed pursuant to section 292 of the land development
regulations. So with that again my name is Carter McDow with Bills and Sunberg. Uh we filed the application on behalf of Upper Upper Deck LLC, the applicant, but we have withdrawn from this matter recently and therefore we are here to request a
continuence. Um you're going to I think have a shortboard anyway, but we would request that this matter be continued not to the next meeting, but one meeting after to allow our client, our former client to time to hire new counsel and to get up to speed. the as you know this
has carried on for a while because there's the litigation between one of the other condo owner well the association and one of the other condo owners within the building. Um and it's really a complicated record for someone to come into and get up to speed on and
therefore that's our request. Uh we're not prepared to go forward. We're not here for the hearing itself simply to request the continuence. So you still technically represent the client >> only for the matter only to the extent of asking for continuance. We do not
otherwise represent the client. >> Are there any members of the public that want to speak about this? >> Hello. Good morning. I'm the applicant. My name is Gerald Buena. I came in person to tell you the importance of this continuence. Um the reason why is
um as explained by my former attorney current for this morning. Um it's a complicated matter. Um as you may know as the association and his lawyer here today and um the matter is uh the reason why we're here today is originally
because of them. they have initiated um the request from the planning director and from that aspect we had to discontinue our operation and therefore ask for a full interpretation and moving forward being
here um the reason why it's important for us to um uh end all litigation before a decision is made by this board is because whatever is going to be decided today
could be used eventually against us. So um it's extreme extremely important for us that litigation first ends and then we are in position that to continue presenting you um the reason why we
believe uh the interpretation made by u the zoning director is incorrect. But we rather do that obviously when all litigation is over. >> Yes. >> What gives you the impression that
within two months your litigation is going to end? >> Um we have a current settlement in place and there is a motion for enforcement. Um we have a a one point that we disagree with um the association and
it's very important because um to not get technical is one of these point will create mutness for the other claim with the other um um other people involved in the lawsuit because it's two parties and um and we care about not
having uh the the the settlement creating u intertwining with the other claims. Um and therefore we are going to go in front of the judge to make sure that this point is rightly addressed and we have a still a strong chance of
settlement because everything else is agreed upon. Um regarding the the other claims with the other uh condo owner that have nothing to do with this uh with this subject today. uh but I cannot guarantee you that in two months it will
be resolved but I can guarantee you in two months I will have proper representation and if we need to um present you our argument we'll be most perfectly prepared for for doing so um and um so that's to answer your question
that's where we are today um we intend to uh end this uh leation who have been listing for three Our goal is not to continue it forever because you understand that during that time I cannot use my property. I cannot do
anything with it and uh and obviously it's very uh you know not a fun process to be in the middle of litigation. So that's the situation. >> Okay. >> And and obviously so in full disclosure um the settlement include uh the sale of
the property. So it will also create a goodness about this uh um this appeal but until this is done we don't know. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I ask the is there a meeting in August?
>> We do not have a meeting in August. The if if they do not continue to July the next meeting would be in September. >> And justform informationally when's the July meeting? Uh I believe July >> July 10th I think. >> So it's not even a full month. You got
the holiday you got the holiday before that meeting that I you know any any new council really is going to need time to get up to speed. I promise this goes back to when Richard Lorber was the planning director before Tom. So it's a
complicated record. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Oh yes. >> No. No. I'm going to ask Uh, anybody else want to speak from the public? >> May I Carter, if you need this? I do.
>> Uh, good morning, Mickey Morero, Burke Howard, Fernandez, Larkin, and Tapinis, 200 South Biscane Boulevard. I I'm the attorney representing the association. With me today is Jay Chavez, the property manager. I very much respect Mr. McDow and normally for a continuence, when it's something administrative like change of council, I
normally, it's often in his shoes. I normally would not object to this type of continuence. This is really a unique case. This has been going on for over two years at this point and requesting a two-month continuence is really 90 days as as you pointed out because there's no August meeting. The association while there is litigation, we you know, I
didn't want to get into the terms of it, but some of it was mentioned before. We did not object to the continuence last month. We objected to the two prior because again, the the association just wants this resolved and we were under the impression that a settlement was on on the verge of being entered into uh
June uh I'm sorry, in May. Now we're back here. Some of that is, you know, has fallen apart a little bit. Hopefully it does get settled. But they're two separate things. And if any, if they have any relation, we see it as this is a predicate to that. So we don't believe that this has to wait for the litigation
to resolve itself if it resolves itself. At this point, there is no settlement based on, you know, the current situation and this may be going to trial. But this is a separate thing. This is essentially and the the the assertion by by the applicant that we initiated this is just incorrect. This
was initiated by a request from them to get an interpretation from the planning director that entertainment is you know DJ entertainment is permitted as of right on that rooftop you know not to get into the terms but that's you know we can get into that if we if we go forward but that's and and then there
them getting the response they didn't want on that request resulted in their appealing Mr. Mooney's decision. that's that that we're we're responding to that. We did not initiate that. Uh you know, we believe it's well settled that that it's not permitted, but that's a separate issue. So, the association has
been sort of held hostage waiting month after month for this thing to get resolved. We believe that the decision here will impact the use of that building. It's a historic building, you know, 100 years old and and we really, you know, want it resolved. So, normally I wouldn't object to a continuence here.
I cannot support this continuence. This would now be the third council on this matter for this case over in over two years. We've been monitoring this month after month in touch with staff trying to get this thing resolved. So, we just can't support a continuence at this
point. Thank you. >> Um I have a question. Um, if it's the applicant or you're a lawyer, if you didn't get the continuence today, just for example, you're not a lawyer of record on other matters other than asking for the continuence. So, there
would be nobody here to potentially >> client would not be represented for that hearing. That's correct. >> Excuse me. >> The client would have no representation for the hearing at that point and I would strongly recommend that you not do that. >> Thank you. And one other question. Um,
is there the dispute is over whether or not music can be played on the roof, right? And I know we're not getting into that, but or or entertain a little more complicated than that. >> Let me just ask this is that is not going on right now. >> It is not going on. >> Okay. >> There is zero activity for the last
three years. >> The the the space that the client owns has been vacant or unused for the whole time of this proceeding. >> Okay. Thank So, so the urgency that the attorney is referring is non-existent
and uh and the and regarding the initiation um without going into details uh they have they have initiated with regarding one specific event it's mail it's public record so there is no contest with that.
>> Okay. Did you want to say something? Just for the record, very quickly, um just want to point out that there is a special magistrate case that we've been continuing related to a kill switch for the music. Whether or not how this is resolved would dictate whether or not we
need that item and it's a violation against the association. We've continued it based on the resolution of this matter. At the last special magistrate hearing after two years of continuing it, they told us no more continuences. So we're I think it's like in October if we don't have that resolved there going to be there's going to be a fine against
the association. So again it's I I understand it's not being used today but there is some urgency. Uh you know I I understand the situation they're in but it's it's been two years >> and you need to for this to be resolved before that could be resolved. Is that what you're saying? The reason, you know, we need would need this resolved
is because the violations if there is that entertainment and that music on the roof, there's a kill switch required by the uh fire department for emergency services. If we don't have that activity on the roof, we don't need the same type of kill switch. So, and it's an expensive uh expensive improvement. So,
we've been continuing it based on the resolution of this. >> So, that's in October. So, if this was in fact heard in September, it would meet that timeline. Well, we would give us enough time to get it permitted and constructed, but I suppose we could ask for another continuance from the magistrate. They've told us no more continuences, but you know, there is we
just can't go on forever and it's been kind of feels like forever at this point. >> Okay. >> If I may, I know very much about this uh situation. So, we had the uh same violation at the same time and it's been resolved on our side without having any
uh involvement from your side. So I may also contest what uh the other attorney is saying. It's simply coming things that doesn't affect. It's a matter of a permit to resolve some violation. We will resolve them. They didn't.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> And they're just trying to >> Okay. >> You're not helping yourself. >> Any hand any hands raised on online? Anybody who'd like to speak online, please raise your hand. Nope. No hands raised.
>> Do we want to consider um does anybody want to make a motion for a continuence? >> What does the uh >> or does anybody on the board have any other question? >> Does the city have any view on this? >> The the city is ready to proceed. However, we are we do not object to a continuence. We're okay if the board wishes to continue to a later date.
>> And this is the first time that I've been president my two and a half years for a potential appeal. I mean it I mean we we have a recommendation in our package but it seems like the planning director is recommending what the planning director decided. I mean seems like uh that would be an obvious
recommendation but um okay um I'll leave it open if anyone else has question. >> Anybody else? >> Okay. So, do somebody want to make a motion to continue or or to not?
>> Oh, I would make a motion to continue to July 10th and let them give us an update then and we could further decide if >> Okay. I have >> So, motion to continue to July 10th meeting. >> I have a motion to July 10th. >> Second. >> Okay. I have a second. Want to vote on that?
>> Okay. Motion by Mr. Krennic, second by Mr. Cinnamon. Uh, all >> all those in favor? >> I >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> To be clear, the motion does not prohibit or suggest that there wouldn't be a further continuence if new council needs it to get up to speed.
>> It does not. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. Um, do we want to take a brief recess? I'll step out and see where um, Dan is in his call and um, we'll resume in a few minutes. >> That works. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. >> Hi, thank you for allowing us to take a brief break. Um, so do we want to tee up the next item? >> Yes. The next item is >> The next item is ZBA25-0177.
It's for 310 Alton Road. An application has been filed requesting after the-act variances for lot coverage, unit size, interior sideyard setbacks, open space, and artificial grass requirements in order to legalize modifications to an existing two-story home. Um the u this
application was uh previously before the board, but it's been continued. Um it was originally scheduled for March 6, 2026. That meeting was canceled, so the item was continued to April, and then the item was continued again to May. Um and then in May it was discussed and
continued to to this meeting. Um the applicant has uh submitted plans designed by Joseé Eolano dated uh December 2nd, 2025. Um and then they are they have uploaded revised plans that they'll be passing out um dated May 30th, 2026. So those were done uh just a
few last week. Um so they they did not get a chance to make those into your packet. Um however, they they'll pass out copies. Um the uh the applicant is requesting five variances. The variances are a variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage of 30% to allow for a lot
coverage of 35.4% um for that's that's 2590 ft and legalize to legalize additions to the existing house. A variance to exceed the maximum unit size of 50% to allow a unit size of 58.3% um again to legalize uh an addition to
an existing house. a variance of the required side interior yard setback of 7 feet 6 in to legalize an existing one-story detached guest room and and uh and the addition to the main house with a side interior setback of 5'2 in.
Um a variance of the rear yard setback to an allow for to allow for an accessory building um um with a setback of 7'6 in and then to allow for a con condenser unit with a setback of three feet from the rear yard. Excuse me. Um, and then a variance of the front and
rear yard soldered landscape pvious open space requirements to allow for artificial grass in installations uh to be legalized where artificial grass is not allowed. Um, the artificial grass has been installed throughout the property. Um, however, I'll get into a little more detail on that one. Um, so
the variances 1 through 4 um are related to the legalizing of additions and modifications made to the house, including a new bedroom on the west side of on the west side, an enclosure of an open patio on the east side of the house. Um, both of which were constructed without without permits. Um,
the home uh given that the home was built in 1923, it offered limited opportunities for expansion. The courtyard and second level uh represented practical locations for those additions. Um, additionally, staff uh reviewed historical aerials and noted that the accessory guest house had been
in existence since at least 1952. Um, the applicant has provided uh revised plans including updated photos um uh and exhibits um and provided uh clarification regarding some inconsistencies between some of the exhibits that were presented last time
and this time um and clarified uh some of the issues that we saw previously. So, previously it looked like that accessory guest house had been connected to the main home. It appears that that was actually connected to the main home. Um, however, the applicant has since removed that connection and the accessory structure has been restored to
its original condition as an accessory structure. Um, the additions had they come in for a legal permit, staff likely would have been in support of them because they followed existing uh building lines of the home. That is often uh a
consideration when staff when uh when the board has granted variances to existing homes that are looking to build additions. We look at is the addition a practical uh addition to the home using existing walls, existing structure. Um and does that make sense uh to follow
those walls? And so staff does feel that st that we would have been supportive of several of these variances. Maybe not to the extent that was granted um but but we likely would have supported some of the variances that were granted. Um regarding the uh artificial turf um
initially the the and currently the home has artificial turf on the entire site. The applicant has since provided plans that they will be removing uh significant amounts of the turf. They had the turf due to medical um concerns. They provided uh documentation showing medical issues related to the
landscaping. Um the Apple has since indicated that they will be removing a lot of the turf and re restoring the um the natural landscaping. What they would be doing is where walkways are allowed those walkways would be remain as artificial turf and then um where
there's uh concrete walkways they will be having a basically a strip of artificial turf adjacent to those in order to create a buffer between the areas where people will be walking and gathering and then the areas where um the natural landscaping will take place. So it so it sort of has created a
compromise that staff is supportive of. Um so that actually minimizes the variance in the rear yard. they comply with the open space requirements in the front yard. There is a variance of about 4% um of the open space requirement. So they have come up with a solution that
allows for pvious area for for water to drain which should address um um the concerns that we had previously when it was entirely sawed uh potentially creating issues with runoff on adjacent properties and into the public rideway. This should address that if they proceed
with this plan. Um, so the idea would be if the board of adjustment approves the variance in this fashion, the applicant would then have a certain amount of time to go in and remove all of the artificial turf in the areas where it's currently located and restore natural soded landscaping. Um, so with that, um, staff is not
opposed to the granting of the variances. Um, and staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the attached draft order. >> So the the front yard requires 50% and they're going to be at 46%. Correct. You're saying >> um and they're going to add some
additional drainage as well as that. >> Well, it'll by removing the turf and restoring the landscaping the will be the Yeah. Yes. >> And so we'll we can turn it over to the uh to the applicant. >> Thank you.
>> Good morning again. Uh Mickey Morero >> earning your money today. >> Yeah. Well, they I get to split between the clients, so it's for me to see, but uh Mickey Morero 200 South Miscane Boulevard, Burke, Howard, Fernandez, Larkin, and Tapenus. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Miss Azie Sleman, and
the trust. Um, and I and I'll say we were here, we were just retained a few days before the last meeting. So, we were the ones requesting the continuence, my colleague Carlos Marovich, because we were a new council. So, sometimes that's reasonable. Um, but but we are ready now. And um as as Raelio said, this is really and by the
way, can we get our presentation on the screen if that's Thank you. Um so again, this is 310 Alton Road. It's a unique situation. Very rarely are we before you on a case for after the fact variance is not ideal, but but I
will explain what happened and we're just trying to bring this home and try and get this resolved. um our clients, her dad is a builder and unfortunately during the pandemic when it was more difficult to get city services and permitting. They went ahead and made these improvements without a permit. She was here last time and she's, you know,
understands that what was done wrong and we're just at this point we are where we are and we're trying to legalize it. Uh since we were retained, we've had several conversations and meetings with Raelio and his staff to try and find, you know, common ground to make this work. Um again, here's here's the location of the property. It's on Alton
Road just across from the golf course. We can have the next slide. So the the existing condition as as Raelio pointed out is because the lot is is very small and very narrow and it does have a home that was constructed almost you know almost 100 years ago. Uh this this is a
unique situation and does provide practical difficulties where had they come in and they should have come in prior to construction staff would have still recommended in favor uh except for the turf. and we'll get to that in a second because I think we've gotten to a point where we're we're in common ground
with the city on that. Um, next. So, again, we're here trying to legalize the additions that were done. Um, we understand that it shouldn't have been done without permits, but but we are where we are and thankfully the improvements were things that staff could support. So, we hope that you all can can give us the the approval as well
moving forward. Um, the requ there there's five requests. We'll go into them one by one. Uh first one is lot coverage and this also relates to to the pvious area. As you can see it's a very narrow lot. So any improvement any addition whatsoever
would trigger a a lot coverage variance. Um we we've tried to minimize it as much as possible. Um the allowable lot coverage is only just over 2,000 square feet because it's such a small lot. This exceeds it by you know less than 400 feet but it still triggers that
percentage. Um next unit size. Again the unit size is 50%. it would only be um allowed to be a 3600 square feet because of the existing uh accessory unit that was has been there as Relio said since I believe 1952 and the modest addition
that they made it did trigger a unit size variance. Next Mr. Mur. >> Yes, the last slide. The guest the one-story detached guest room to be added. Is there a FPL easement back
there? Looks like the patio or something in the back of the guest room may encroach into a FPL easement. To our understanding, design encroaching into an easement. And if if if there was an easement, they would have to deal with that at permitting, but we don't believe it encroaches into an ement.
>> There is a survey that we provided. So, >> right. But >> next slide now. Yeah. So the the interior setback on the it's actually on the north side uh that where 7 foot6 is required. That's the minimum. We have a
slight uh request for a reduction for five and a 5'9 in. It's to about a foot and a half um closer than than is allowed by by code. But again it follows the existing uh lot the existing building line of a structure that's already been there for over 50 years
almost 70 years. the accessory building, the accessory setback to legalize the the condenser. It's it's mechanical equipment that that they need for for the home. Um it's a modest request and if it was in the side, there are exceptions that allow these things to be on the sides, but
there's no room on the side because the lot is so narrow. So, I think staff agrees with us that this is the best and most appropriate location to place it. And and this is the one that we'll speak variance 5 is the one that we'll speak to at most length um in speaking with Reelio. So, I'm not going to get into the specific medical reasons, but we've
well established it with staff and documented it. My client and me various members of her family do have a medical condition that requires them not to have natural grass. It impacts where their kids can play at school. It impacts a lot of their life. They cannot be exposed to constant grass. So, that is
and and frankly, while there's no question that she should have known she needed permits for the construction, she frankly was not aware that the turf would be something that would have required a variance. She thought she was just doing something. It was very expensive endeavor doing something to address family health issues. Um but we understand staff's concerns about
potential flooding impacts and and and not having turf that much turf in the area. So while you know it's still theoretically there she's actually removed it. Um and I think you know we we can we can say for sure that it's been removed. What we would like and if okay with it as we discussed if they
they they're going to try to sell this home at some point because there's been some other issues there that it's maybe just easier for her to move on. But if they remain there it still cannot be grass. So what we would like is the opportunity to at least have gravel because with gravel it does allow the permeability that staff is looking for
that turf does not allow. But if it's them living there it it also can't be natural grass because they're going to be they won't be able to go outside their own home. But, uh, if they do, if they are able to sell it, they'll install grass. She's already, you know, retained landscapers to do it. The turf's been pulled out, uh, for most of
the property. So, not it's already kind of in flux because she went I I I advised her that we would be removing, you know, request for full full turf. She went ahead and had the initiative, she moves very quickly sometimes to remove the turf. It's already been removed. Um, but it won't be it won't be
placed back. We're either hoping for if if they don't live in the home, it will be grass. um she currently has tenants living there and the tenants prefer grass over gravel if ultimately her and her family have to move back in um because it's not sold, she would prefer gravel. So that's the only modification.
Otherwise, we fully agree with staff's uh recommendations and their conditions and really commend staff. It's been a challenging application since we've been involved over the last five or six weeks. Um it's been a pleasure to work with them in trying to find common ground here. Next slide. Okay. So, yeah,
these are this this is in our letter of intent also in staff's report. We just wanted to point out some of the hardship criteria and how we believe we address it. Um the the the home is the the property is very narrow. It is construction that was there some of it for almost over almost 100 years.
The accessory structure would not lease was there uh since 1952. So, these conditions existed and they're unique. Um the primary reason that this construction was done without permits. While it's not an excuse, it was during the pandemic era where it was very difficult to get permitting and and and
city certain services, that's not the case today. So we are moving to legalize it. Um there are ve many similar homes throughout the area that have uh the same type of distances for especially for lots this narrow. Um we're trying to seek the minimum variances. the turf replacement was the one that we could at
least uh make make a shift from what was originally requested and we feel that staff's been very very reasonable working with us on that. Um and again in general uh working with the city there's the majority of applications that we have uh whether it's you all the DRB or HPB they're seeking new construction new
homes to replace these existing architecturally significant homes here. We're not trying to seek a brand new home. We're trying to retain the existing home um and and and keep it there. But by keeping it there it requires us to to seek these variances. And had she done this prior to seeing
construction, we would have sought the same variances. We would just be before you under a different posture. So, so with that, we would like, you know, to your support for this. If there's any questions you have, something you'd like to see change, we're open to coming back, but we believe that uh that this
does meet the hardship criteria, practical difficulty criteria in the code that allows you to grant variances. Um, alternatively, they would have to undo all this construction and and create more more havoc. So, while we recognize that this is not the best position to be in, she should have done
this uh prior to the construction, we are where we are and and we're hopefully we can get move this forward uh with with minimal impact. Thank you so much. And again, we're available to answer any questions. We're here with Laura Shear, who is uh the design professional working with with my client and my
colleague Carl Marovich. Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak? >> Yes. >> Before we hear from the public, are there any disclosures on this application? Exparte disclosures. Okay. >> We we haven't seen whatever they just gave to you.
>> We ready for public comment? >> Okay. We're here again. Um they're requesting variances for lot coverage and and square footage limits. Um the applicant's arguments for this are that it's needed be to keep what's already
there. Um they say it was pandemic era construction. They just started saying that. But the house was purchased in May of 22. I mean the pandem pandemic was in March of 2020. This was started they bought it in May of 22 and did the construction after that. So I don't see how that's pandemic area problems. we
are where where we are is no argument for I mean um their only argument is to keep it where it's already been built. But this is not someone who bought a house and it had issues and now needs to come and say sorry um we have these issues we need allowed. This is someone who bought a
conforming house, built without any permits, without trying to get a permit, without doing anything, whatever they wanted, without any regard for zoning rules or neighbors or the city or any regard for size limits. Now, they're asking for large variances. They say
it's only 30 to 38%, but that's a 20% increase. They say it's only or that's a Yeah. And they say the square footage is only a small increase, but it's a 17% increase to a 4200 plus way over 4200 foot house on a lot on a lot that
they've admitted many many times as a small lot. The whole point of the zoning laws is on a small lot, you can only have so large of a house. If they wanted that large of a house or needed that large of a house, there was a simple solution. Buy a lot big enough so you're not out of character. in their own real estate ads. It's a sevenbedroom,
sixb house. Look in this zoning in this uh zoning district. How many sevenbedroom, sixb, 4200 foot houses are there on a lot that size? I'll bet you can't find any. Very few if you do. This is totally out of character. Can I have
two more minutes, please? This totally out of character for the neighborhood. It's and if you go through the my wife will talk about some of the exact facts, but um and they're asking you to rubber stamp what they've already done with
these large variances and and if they if you do, you're inviting every property owner and every builder in the city and developer to just build whatever they want without coming to the city. And then if they happen to get caught, and that's the only reason they're were here is because they got caught because somebody, not
us, someone else reported them and the zoning had issues. So now they want you to rubber stamp it and say, "So you're going to tell every developer, just build whatever you want and come afterwards and ask us for uh variances and we'll give them to you." Um
we submitted a long objection with facts against the variances and argue facts that for all the factors in the variances they have not submitted they've submitted very few um facts and very few arguments as we've I've already
mentioned but also they haven't laid out variance by variance how each variance meets each factor to uh there was a recent court case Sager versus City of Miami Beach. The quasha remanded a design review board variance decision
because it's required that a board list the facts have findings of fact and show that each was met. Here there's just a draft order. The draft order only shows conclusory that it meets all eight things. And the only arguments presented
here or analysis presented by the staff is that it seems reasonable seems reasonable way to add additions. But the whole point of the zoning is they're not entitled to a house that large. They're not allowed to cover that much of the land. And covering an extra 20% of the land creates flooding issues, too.
That's land that's impervious by the definition. They're not entitled to a house that large on a lot that small. That's the whole point. >> For the record, could you please tell us your name? >> Stephen Bonini. The uh >> and your address. >> 3000 Alton Road. Next door. >> You're the neighbor next door, right?
>> Next door neighbor on the south. >> Thank you. >> I'll be wrapping up very shortly if if I can have two more minutes. Um and here and and after the applicant built whatever they wanted are coming to you for a rubber stamp. They're doing it without offering any benefit to the city
without offer any benefit to the neighbors. The only benefit is going to go to the applicant with no cost to the applicant. If a developer comes and builds, if a developer wants to go above the far limits, they have to come to the city, come to the council, say we, oh, please,
please, please give us a 20% increase in FAR and and and to do that, they have to build infrastructure. They have to do something with the roads. They have to build parks. Stuff's asked. Nothing's been asked. They just want to come here and say, "Let us have this large 7-bedroom, sixb house, 4,200 ft on a on
a thing they've admitted many times as a small lot and no benefit to anyone at the least. If you're going to allow this lot coverage and square footage variances, they should be required to put a drain, a French drain or some kind of drain around the property, around the whole
property that keeps the extra water on their property. I I I really don't see how they can meet the criteria to get those two variances, but if if somehow you believe they do and you think that then they should have to do something to
to help the city. I mean, that water goes out out to the street or that water goes on our property or the other neighbors property. We've had terrible flooding the last few days. Um and they've been asked to do nothing to uh alleviate the flooding concerns.
Thank you. >> Good morning. My name is Ilana Bonini and I'm Steve's wife and I we live next door. We have lived next door for 25 years. Um they're they're coming to you board to
rubber stamp what they've done here. They are we already have we have spent a lot of time writing a legal objection to help you guys understand what's going on. We want you to make the right decision. The the law
says they have to meet satisfy each of the eight factors for the variances. They have not met the factors from based on the facts that we've seen and we explained it in our we gave you actual facts that we've seen and we wrote to
you and in the analysis provided by the draft order which is where we would have expected to see our facts analyzed. uh they no one has uh addressed the facts that we have that
that we have given to you guys. Um so that's not going that's not going to help you guys be informed. So I would I would I would ask that you please take a look at our objection. We wrote it very carefully. There's nothing personal in
there at all. It's all legal and um to help you guys make the right decision here. Our property is flooded like like crazy. Uh it rained. Everybody knows us recently. Um there is one inch
of dirt that just stays on my driveway that I just had paved. Cost $5,000 to pave it. Now there's a an inch or half an inch of dirt that just sits on the on the property on the on the driveway
after it rains because it doesn't drain anymore since they built all this stuff. Please deny this variance. It is not fair. They have not met the they have not met the required factors and certainly as my husband said they bought
this house in 2022, not not March of 2020 when CO began. And I don't know how they're they're using that as an excuse at this moment. Um anyway, just
we ask that you Yes. Hold on. Okay. One moment, please. Okay. So, under the self-created conditions, this is criterion number two. When you guys go and look and do your own diligence on this, it's
criterion number two and it says the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant. But building a non-conforming structure without permits and then seeking an after the-act variance as admitted by the applicant is the clearest possible example of
self-created conditions and self-created hardship. The applicant bears full responsibility for every aspect of the alleged hardship and excess lot coverage, the oversized square footage, the encroaching setback, the complete and entire yard with artificial turf.
And those are all deliberate choices by the applicant um to do so without without permits. And this is not the first time, you know, that address 2058 Alton is also this person's property. Did the same thing, built a house with no permits. I don't know if you guys
knew that, but um we ask that you deny this variance. Thank you. >> May I ask you a question? >> Yes, please. >> I'm sorry. Um so I understand the flooding issue onto your property. Um so I I just out of curiosity.
>> Yeah. >> Is your main objection what they did with the artificial turf or is your I mean I know you object to it all. >> Correct. But if if that happened and everything else stayed the way it was, would that solve most of your issue? I'm just asking that as
>> Unfortunately, I do not believe so because the lot coverage is so is so uh excessive that as a result, there's nothing to absorb all the water. It just goes right onto our property. So, it's not just the turf. >> Well, flooding isn't the only issue. The other I mean, it's also it's out of I mean, look at the criteria. It's totally
out of character. Do a search for a sevenbedroom, sixb house on a lot that size. Find a real estate, ask a real estate agent. I mean, it's just not in character with the neighborhood. It's not in character with the zoning rules. There's a simple solution. If you want or need a house that big, buy a lot big enough to build a house that big.
There's tons of houses that big on North Bay Road. They have larger lots. They don't buy the smallest lot and just build whatever they want without asking. I find it and the and the staff admitted that no, we wouldn't have allowed all these variances as they they said we might have allowed some of the variances
or maybe a more limited variance. That's an omission that they wouldn't have allowed these variances of this large. The staff admitted they wouldn't allowed variances this large if they would have came beforehand. >> And then I I'll leave you with the the only reason that we've read for them to do this now is well the structure is
already there. We we already built it. So, you know, kind I mean that's not a good reason to to I mean I don't know. We we've just been here 25 years. We would have shocking. Please deny the variance. Is there anybody else from the
public that wants to speak? >> Anybody online? If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. >> No hands raised. >> Okay. So, um, let's go with questions from >> Yeah. Let's close the public public comment and then ma'am, are you here for
a special magistrate case? It's down on the first floor. >> Does anybody have any questions? I have a question. Okay. >> Um, you have several different objections. Yes.
Um, let's deal one one objection at a time. Number one is the flooding that you say is caused by your your neighbor. >> Yes. >> Okay. So in order for that issue to get
resolved, if they were to put say a well, a drainage well in the front of their property or as a a dry some sort of drainage pit, would that satisfy the the drainage issue >> if they built a French drain around the
whole property? Right now, I don't know what their plans show and and who knows what the plans say, but right now on the southside side lot, the lot between our house and their house, they have a solid cement patio that goes from their house to within approximately a foot of the property line, a solid cement patio
that's covered with artificial turf. And that's what they call artificial turf. At least that's what they did before. I don't know what the present plans are. They were just sprung on us. But, uh, the uh that all that water and and they have drains off the roof come onto that side of the house. So all the water water off the roof is coming off hitting
that and going straight onto our property. Every drop of water from the large flat from this large house now it's a large flat roof. That water comes over there. The water hits the thing and the water comes right on our property. So they'd have to build a French drain along the whole property line. >> Okay. So if they did that would that solve
>> that would solve one issue. That doesn't >> one issue. We're doing one issue at a time. >> That's separate. That's a condition if you're going to allow it. But regardless of whether that solves an issue, they have to meet the eight hard hardship criteria for each and every variance. And there has to be findings of facts supporting that or it's just going to or
the court just going to quash it and remand it and say you guys got to do it over again. >> So if they had a drainage plan by a certified registered engineer, soils engineer that could
solve that problem. Correct. >> Potentially. >> Yeah, potentially. Okay. I'm looking for solutions. >> I see. I appreciate that. Yes, that's Yeah, that's potential. >> And all these additions without permits were done without
were done since 2022. >> Yes. >> After she bought the house. >> Okay. So, what you're asking if they get denied, you're asking the city to demand them demolish the the
buildings. Correct. Well, well, they took a shed and turned it into a house to to that they advertised. I mean, and and you should look at the history of this place and look at the facts we set we set out in the beginning of our objection. I mean, they've been under a stop work order for years, but they
never stopped work. They opened they made brand new openings and doorways. They built driveways after the stopwork order. They they and and the pictures they're showing you now of the backyard in that connection are not those pictures are years old because they've built a pool what they call pool jacuzzi
under ing in ground pool jacuzzi with underground plumbing and a heating condenser unit in the backyard with again with no permits. And is that because of the pandemic? They had somebody there yesterday putting up uh adding uh gutters and stuff just yesterday. Is that because of the
pandemic? They they have no regard for the rules. And if you rubber stamp it, this is just telling everybody the zoning laws do not matter. >> Okay. >> What does the planning department recommend in order for them to
will the planning department recommend that they get after the fact per building permits? >> Yes, they will need after the fact building permits to prove that everything was done according to the building code. um according uh to any any other pending issues that are not covered by the
variances and that's going to include engineering site uh you know site uh flooding and drainage and all that. So I think that they need to submit to this board. We ask for a continuence
and ask the for them to provide new plans, engineered plans for the drainage and a acceptable use of the nonconforming building.
um that is acceptable to the city to to the planning department and also to the neighbor. I mean I I understand where you're coming from. Um but where reality is we're trying to figure out a solution
on a stepby-step basis. And one other qu one other question we have in in the plans everything we've seen from the planning and zoning is said that back structure is illegal unless it's connected to the house and it's not connected and if it's going to be connected doesn't that add more square
footage and more lot coverage so I don't even know if these variances are enough because does is planning going to require it to be connected or is that going to need a variance to have a non-connected or or are they going to connect it and that's going to add more square footage and more lot coverage even more than what they're asking for now. No, no, it it needs to be not
connected to be an accessory building. Um the they had initially showed pictures where it was connected. >> Okay. >> And that's been removed, it seems. So, it's no longer connected. >> Okay. >> When you say connected, does a roof with no sidewalls mean connected? >> It shouldn't have any roof structure
connecting it? >> Didn't the picture they submit just show? I thought the picture I saw this morning looks like there was a roof there, but okay, hold on. I >> just to with to address that point again, Mickey Morero for the applicant. So yeah, in speaking with Relie, you understand that the the setbacks are different if it's an accessory structure
or the main house. So we are agreeing that it's going to be disconnected. We I wanted to asked her not to do it until we got the resolution here. So we didn't do anything else that was in contradiction to what was happening, but she's agreed to disconnect it so it would apply the accessory rear yard setbacks would apply.
>> And to Mr. Silver's point, you know, in hearing. So, the biggest issue and and speaking to staff and understand the objection, the biggest issue, and I know there are others, but the biggest issue is the flooding concerns with the turf. So, I frankly advised her she felt it was really important to keep the turf. I
advised her that that was really something that she need to consider removing and we we did remove it. In fact, she went ahead and removed it already. Um, so that's gone. But I understand about the potential drainage solution. I don't know if a French drain is this doable by code. If it is, we can explore that. I would not be opposed to
working with staff to fi try and find an additional drainage solution, a well, something. I don't have that before you today, but we're happy to continue to try and address it. You know, I I I understand their concerns. We thought that with the turf and we actually had she prior to my involvement, she had an
engineer look at the flooding and he concluded that the turf wasn't having a material impact on the neighborhood flooding. That being said, we still felt that it was a potential concern and in speaking to staff, we we recommended it be removed and it it has been removed or, you know, we'll be be compliant to
that to that effect, but an additional drainage uh solution. We're open to that and and I'm happy to speak to my client and try and find something that that can work with staff. I I hear you. We want to get to some common ground here. I I understand that the the scenario is not ideal. We're just trying to get this to to a place where everybody can can move
on, but I'd be more than open to to exploring a drainage solution with staff. >> I have some questions. I'm sorry. Don't >> No, go ahead. >> Oh, okay. Um, so you said there's a tenant in there now, >> and then you made some comment that the owner may sell the house, right? >> Um, and then also you said that if they
stay in the house, they're going to put gravel where the turf is, and if they don't stay in the house, they're going to put grass where the turf is. So, since there's a tenant in there now, what is the plan right now? Are they going to put grass in? >> It would be grass. >> Okay. >> It would be grass.
>> All right. Um, and then also, I don't know if maybe the staff could help us a little bit with this, but can you, at least for me, um, have me understand the exact hardship criteria u points that need to be met um, and how they are. Can
you step through step through them one by one for the addition specifically? I'm asking um and how you're um you believe they have been met. >> Uh yes. So the the criteria let's go one by one. So
special circum special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same zoning district. The peculiar conditions are related to the structure. This is a structure that was originally
built I I believe in the 1930s. uh sorry 1923. And so the the fact that that structure exists and their desire to maintain that structure uh provides some conditions that are peculiar to the land. And so that structure had a courtyard um that was a logical place to
fill in for an addition and then a second story I believe there was a second story above that. Um and so the the existing building was what was peculiar to the land that that um that meets that criteria. um special conditions and circumstances
do not result from the action of the applicant. Um so yes, the after the-act construction is a condition that results from the applicant's actions. However, the existing building and and the logical location of those additions is not a condition that results from the
applicant given that the home was built in 1923. Um granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privileges that is denied by these land development regulations to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. Um so this variance is
for a single family home. Um residents can have a single family home. Uh people have requested unit size variances often from this board and they've been granted especially when you're doing an addition to an existing home. Um so that's not a that's not a special right there. it's
going to be maintained as a home. Um, the literal interpretation of the provisions of these land development regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of these land development regulations and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the
applicant. Um, so the the um the provisions of the land development regulations do pre did prevent them from having um the turf in a way that they felt was necessary from a medical perspective. Um, and then it also prevented them from doing a reasonable
addition to an existing structure. Um, and so it was uh essentially denying them the ability um to to um have a right that that that other property owners can enjoy their property in a
certain way. Um the variances granted is the minimum variance that will make the possible that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Um, in terms of the the landscaping, we have we believe we have reduced it to a level that that makes reasonable use of the building land um
um that that makes the the the use reasonable. Um in terms of the minimum variance for the structure, the structure is there so that they've requested the minimum necessary for the structure um to continue to exist. Um and then the granting of the variance
will be in harmony with the general intent and purposes of these land development relations and that such uh variants will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Um we feel that with the changes to the turf that it's not going to negatively impact the public welfare. They will still need to
do other things related to the building permit and civil engineering and drainage and and other things to ensure that that's the case. Um the structure remains a single family home from the front. uh it has the same scale that it previously had. So uh from a visual perspective to the street, it's not
creating any any additional negative impacts in that regard. Um um and then next, the granting of this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and does not reduce the levels of service set forth in the comp in the plan. Um so the the comprehensive plan, this is designated as a single family
district, remains a single family home. Um so there's no no inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan. As far as levels of service, um the levels of service in the comprehensive plan, uh related to parks, it's not affected because it's it remain the use remains the same. Related
to transportation, we're we're a concurrency exemption area, they may have to pay a mobility fee. I'm I'm not certain. Um but as they go in for their after the fact building permit, that will be addressed. Um um and so the levels of service will be met. They will also in terms of there's levels of
service for drainage and portable water. Uh for portable water, the use is not changing. So the level of service should be met and actually the turf reduces their their consumption of water of portable water. Um the sanitary sewer um should be should not be impacted. It
should be about the same given that it's a single family home. And uh the other level of service um is related to garbage pickup um which should not be impacted. Um and I'm missing one. Parks, transportation,
portable water. Uh oh, drainage. They'll have to do their civil engineering plan to ensure that the drainage works properly. Um and then uh the granting and variance will result in a structure and site that complies with the sea level rise and resiliency review criteria in chapter 7
article one. Um and so most of these issues in the sea level rise and resiliency review criteria were satisfied. Um there are a few that based on the recommendations we had regarding the artificial turf primarily um that that needs to be addressed and and we believe that they have so that criteria
is now satisfied. >> Thank you. >> Um so then I have a question about the timeline. Um when was this addition uh when when was the construction of that is the subject of this done? >> Yeah, it shortly after they moved in. I mean that they
>> which was when >> 2022 beginning of 2022. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, >> it had to be June or late. I mean, they bought it in May. They bought it. >> And it wasn't done the day they bought it. I mean, just saying some early is not accurate. >> May. >> How many rooms are being rented out in this house?
>> It's a six It's just It's a to one family. It's a long-term lease. It's six-bedroom home. >> And that's another question I have. So, I'm sorry. Did the owner actually ever live in this home? >> Yes. >> And so, when did they start renting it? it it's been on and off, but they've
they've had two long-term leases there. Um, and one of the I don't really want to get into the situations. One of the folks had to move out because they didn't feel comfortable. >> So, it's 2026 now, correct? Right. They bought it in 2022. It probably took several months to do the work that has
been done, right? So, let's just say now we're into 2023ish, right? So, and you've had two long-term leases, right? So, if the owner lived there at any time, it was maybe for a month. >> The long-term leases, one of them uh had
to get broken early because they they just >> So, after leasing it, when the lease got broken, then they moved in and then they moved out again and rented it. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Um, and I guess my the reason I'm asking these questions is because I mean I think it's one thing to be asked
something for a hardship saying that you have a family that's too big for the home that you are in and you need to increase the size of the home and all of that, but if you buy a home that has certain zoning and then you increase the home just to get more rent or get more money when you go to sell the home, I
think it's a slightly different criteria. At least in my view it is. So, I'm trying to understand if they ever really lived there or if they ever intend to live there. >> Yeah. So, the intention was to live there. Um and and that was why they purchased it. That's why they bought it. Um it's been an uncomfortable situation
with them with neighbors. >> They intended to live there, but they bought it. They did construction. They rented it. Somebody broke the lease. Then they moved in for a short period of time until they were able to lease it. >> Initially, they were living in the home. Initially, they was it was going to be their home. um they she has another
another property so she >> so between closing and finishing the work that they did illegally they decided that they didn't want to live there anymore. >> Is that what you're saying that that they wanted to rent it instead? >> Right. There was Yeah. There was a period of time where they rented it,
they moved back in and then the the health issues were related to it. So it's it's been it's been chaotic and difficult for me to fully understand completely. But they have lived there for a significant period of time. Their hope their hope was when >> Can you define a significant period of time? >> What's that? >> Can you define a significant period of time?
>> You know, at most a year at a time. >> So, you're saying that during this whatever four years it's been since they've owned it, they've lived there for at least 12 months. >> Yes. >> But I I don't think that the hardship is
related to whether the person lives there or not. Well, I mean, as a side plan, I I understand that, but >> I also think that the city still is requiring them to go through a lot of architectural plans as well to approve this. Like, this isn't We're not saying, "Okay, you're done. Have a good day."
They have, this is not an easy process for them as well. I like what you said about the drainage. I think we should, the city should maybe look I know that corner, that corner floods regardless of whether your house has grass or not. like that's a bad area on that turn there where when it rains a lot you do
get pretty bad flooding. So that's not a house problem, it's a city problem. But I think like they they've done a good job in trying to work and come up with a solution and remove the grass and try to permit it and remove what needs to be done.
It's not it wasn't done correctly 100% but it's also like what are we going to make them do now? Tear it down. if I think the city did a good job in working through this and I do like their recommendation overall. I understand there's certain concerns and maybe we do have to push to the next meeting but
just wanted to share that >> and I just want to point something out there, you know, again at no point am I saying this is great situation to be in. We we don't want to be in this situation. There might even have been had they done things proactively in the beginning there may have been an opportunity to do this administratively
because the city since it because of the age of the home uh it is it could be considered architecturally significant and then you can get 10% increases in lock coverage and unit size administratively. They didn't do that that opportunity is no longer available because it was done after the fact but there could have been there could have
been an administrative path here. That said um two other points I wanted to address. They're they're not getting off scut scot-free if that's the concern. Whenever they do if this gets approved and they have to get permits, they're going to have to pay double permit fees on everything they do because it was done after the fact. That's a significant cost that they will have to
take on. That that's the penalty the city provides for doing work after the fact and that remains in this case. Um also the board is allowed to to to consider variances not only under the hardship criteria but as staff lays out in their report under practical difficulty and we feel that certainly there uh things are more met but again I
hear Mr. Felic also echoing Mr. Silver's comment. While we, you know, we're happy to continue discussing here, if there's an opportunity and you all would like us to see further exploration of drainage issues, we're happy to do that and and work with staff and come back with with those plans.
Can you um arrange a uh appointment to have access to the house to take a look at what the existing condition is because what our own plans are not necessarily what the existing condition is. >> Yeah, absolutely. You're saying with yourself with staff, but yes, we we'd be
happy to do that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But I don't I don't think it's practical for us to go as a board. I don't even think that is protocol. Although >> you have to go as an individual. >> Oh, yeah. I I I think again they have to go through what they're going to submit on their plans is going to have to be approved by the city. So if something is
not there like if there is a covering between the accessory unit it's going to have to be demolished. So I trust the city process. I I think the draining thing is a question. I also think putting French drains around the entire property is not so practical and extremely expensive as well. So I would
defer to the city to decide if that is needed. Um, but I think we do need to continue this matter. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> So, question for the city. I mean, are short-term rentals allowed in this area? >> No.
>> No. It's prohibited in single family residents by code. And if they if they removed the accessory structure, would would they then be in compliance with with all >> if the accessory structure was removed, they may they that may uh accomplish them complying with the unit size and
lot coverage standards. I I'd have to do the math, but that that may get them there. >> Most likely, they'd be closer in compliance with the four. They wouldn't need the four other variances, >> correct? >> Okay. And do do we know who the contractor is that did the work on this?
I mean, is that Um, do you have that information? >> I'm fairly certain it's her dad who was a builder. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Board member Silverman had a question about who living there.
>> May I answer that? Just look at the Airbnb short-term rental file that the city of Miami Beach has on the house and you'll see who's been there. There there is an open violation for advertising um that hasn't been heard yet by the magistrate. It will be heard I believe
next week. >> Yeah. >> And and I just on that point, you know, we have fairly significant backup that that is that did not occur and they did not put that ad and they've actually contacted Airbnb. At no point and I spoke to my client at length about this
did she ever advertise this for rental. fact, she had confronted the tenant that was there at the time and threatened to, you know, remove them because of that and they contended that it wasn't them either. So, it's it's unclear what happened, but we contended has not been short-term rent and that advertisement
was not placed on my client. >> A few things. One is there was a comment about what are we going to do? Have them tear it down? Um, I think that is an option. Um, last I checked and I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Um, so I'm no I'm not suggesting they tear it down, but yeah, I think that actually is one of the things that we're supposed to
consider when we evaluate this. And to um board members point um about removing the accessory structure, which is sounds like a tear down that could solve the problem. Um again, I'm not I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm not suggesting this. I'm not voting on this
what I'm saying. I'm just pointing these this out. Um, I fully support the drainage thing. Um, by the way, you there was a comment like this this the corner has a a flooding issue. This city has a flooding issue.
Um, for sure the corner I don't know the corner. Um, but you don't have to go far to find it in this city. So, um, >> 25 years. So, while probably, I mean, I'm not an expert on this, probably adding a structure here or there doesn't change the world, when you already have
a problem, taking away drainage opportunities probably doesn't help. Um, so I fully support the comments about and even the applicants um offer, I believe, to figure out a solution on trying to improve drainage. Um, I don't
know if it's a sump pump or I don't know what it is. I don't I don't know what I'm stuff, but the people who do to figure it out um to try to help mitigate that issue. Um two other things. Um
I I think when you went through step by step, one of the things you said was when you went through like the elements or the the structure is there illegally, right? The struct I think you said the structure is there. They're asking for the minimum necessary to keep it there. >> Mo Yes. Yeah.
>> So, I mean I I like >> as opposed to adding more >> I'm doing like mental gymnastics on that concept. The building is there illegally and they're asking for the minimum necessary which would be to >> keep it I that that doesn't seem that like doesn't move my needle much like
that that sounds like uh a problem to fix a problem. I I don't I don't really get that. Um, last thing, timeline to is there like for for all of these and there was a comment which I appreciate that this is we're not just giving this away. This is going to cost
them a lot of money. It's going to the the we trust the city and I agree with that that they're making a recommendation. I trust them and I'm on board generally with what they recommend. Um, this is not just a giveaway. There's a lot they have to do to that extent. Is there some sort of
timeline on them doing the things that they're supposed to do and making sure that it gets done? Because by saying, "Yeah, it's not a giveaway. They have to do these things, but then, you know, the neighbors or whoever else has to live with this ongoing ongoing ongoing with the inspections and this and that or or they don't even call in the inspections
or or whatnot. How do we make sure this gets done?" >> Well, um, to that point, um, there are two open special magistrate cases, one for the interior renovations as well as the extension. and it's a building violation that has a compliance date
already of July se 6th. So by July 6th, they're supposed to have a full building permit and final inspections. Otherwise, they would be subject to fines. There's also a companion case for the driveway and um the sidewalk um that were
repaired with or installed without a permit. So there are two open building cases with compliance dates of July 6th. And does that go to the variances that we're considering? >> Well, one of the reasons that they got a continuence that Mr. Morero sought a
continuence in front of the special magistrate was that this hearing was continued. So, the compliance date got continued out depending upon what the decision of this board was as far as granting variances and so that they can
go for the building permit. It will not be completed obviously by July 6th and there will be I'm sure based upon what happens today a request by Mr. Morero for additional time in those cases. >> Yeah. Well, I I just I just think that um
that making them go through all of these things like the law the legal requirements is good only to the extent that we make them actually do it and that we make them actually do it within a certain time period. Otherwise, I think it's without teeth. Well, time frames are not before the
board. I mean, you're either going to approve or deny the variances. The actual building permit process will take place. And just to address one comment that Mr. Morero made, the building department never closed during CO. Um,
and then there's disputed facts here, uh, which seem to be that this wasn't an application or a building that was constructed in April of 2020, but under the leadership of a prior building official, building department never shut down during COVID. So all through 2020
and 2021, it was open. We started online portals for submitting things and documents. Permits were approved, permits were um, issued and work was done, and there were final inspections. Now in some of the highrises you have to understand that during that period
looking back a lot of buildings did not want work done in the units but that's not the case here and the building department for the record never shut down during co >> understood. Question >> yeah under the third district case of
Mardo Buick versus Haley Skaterama um 3010 may need to put up a wall. Um the courts held that you cannot drain property water onto your neighbor's property. You have to contain it in your own property.
>> Um my understanding we're here for a public service. It would not benefit anybody here uh for this board to make a ruling and for the third district court of appeals to reverse us. The third
district is very consistently and I'll read it to you. We have consistently held such self-imposed acts to be insufficient to constitute a legal hurtship sufficient to warrant the granting of a
variance. And it cites to the city of Miami Beach versus Greater Miami Hebrew Academyy's case. Um, a hardship cannot be self-created. Um,
these hardships, all five of them are selfcreated. Especially the setback is a required setback of 7.5 ft and you're asking for a 5.5 ft
setback which is not allowed in this city. Um, we're required to comply with the law and for the record
here to be to find substantial competent compliance and evidence for any of these hardships. Um, so far I've not seen any hardships presented that are not self-created. Um,
Miss Mar, you showed up on the screen that trying to call the self-created hardship because of the pandemic. The pandemic did not cause these hardships. Whomever built these without first
obtaining approval created the hardships um, which is not allowed for a variance. That's all. That's a no. >> If I could just respond, >> make a motion to vote on this.
>> I'm sorry. Okay. So, we could do two things here as far as I could. We can vote on the variance by variance or at least group them because I think they're two and two that are related and one that's separate. Um, or we can just vote on the whole thing. I'll take it under adisement as to what people would prefer
to do. >> The record, it should be each individual one. So that okay and if you wanted each individual one >> I I would prefer for the record that it be each individual one because I think there are certain facts and circumstances for each one as opposed to
a group but certainly whatever uh motion is made. >> Okay. >> I know there's some indications some board members may want to seek a >> you want to say one more thing. >> Yes. Very briefly. So I just want to to clarify that while hardship is a very very high standard and we understand it. the the board allows the city allows
variances to be considered under practical difficulty as well which I think is what staff relied on a lot of their recommendation I think that's an important distinction uh question was made about you know get access to the property bu one way or the other you know this this will in order to get resolved whatever happens here a
building permit and a whole building permit process with double fees significant review will be required all of the all of the proposed work will have require periodic inspections from the city's building department these permits cannot be closed until it's repeated inspections from the
city. So, there will be city personnel, building department personnel, zoning personnel on site making sure that at this point going forward, whatever is done complies with code, complies with city requirements. Um, and I just to close, I think the three board members mentioned support for trying to, you
know, to get some common ground here. We're more than open, and I know we're not in the best situation, but we're more than open to work with staff and try and come back with a more solidified drainage solution. that seems to be the biggest concern. Um, we we don't necessarily agree that aside from the
turf that any rainwater is not is not coming on our property, but we can further address it. Um, I think Mr. Felig was was starting that discussion about potentially going back and Mr. Silver. So, we would be open to that. We want to solve this. Um, it's a significant, you know, effort to get this done right and we're more than
happy to work with staff and and with our engineer. Unfortunately, our engineer for this meeting could could not be here. She would had a pre-planned vacation. Um, but she is engaged and we'd be more than happy to have her propose a solution um to further enhance the drainage and we'd be fine to come back with that.
>> Yes, I think uh maybe we're going to just do a short poll because I don't think there's support for >> May respond. >> I have a question for the city >> because I gave him another minute. >> I have a question for the city attorney. My understanding is the eight hardship criteria are the only way to uh to uh
get a variance these days. I think that Miami Beach didn't the city code didn't they remove from the city code the other thing that he's suggesting was a way to a variance >> they removed the practical >> difficult >> difficulties >> so the language practical difficulties and undue hardships is still in the code
but but the uh the showing of of variance the variance criteria are are the same I I don't think that I don't think that case law treats practical difficulties differently than than other >> isn't it mandatory that they meet those eight criteria whatever you call it there's not some other standard that you
can say let's forget those eight criteria we can we have this other thing and we let's call it that that's not allowed correct >> right um so what are you suggesting >> I don't think there's we may just want to do stroke pole to see if there's any support of it then >> um
>> I think they're very interconnected I read through all four of them I'm like I don't think you can vote on one like you're not going to approve one >> okay so do we want to take a stontion at this point >> me either Continuence. >> Okay. >> I don't think it's a matter of continuing or not.
>> Okay. But I I mean I guess the continuence would be for the city and the applicant to work together to find a more amendable solution. I know you've worked on the drainage part. Obviously there are other issues as well as you've heard today. So maybe there's some other solution.
Um is a continuence to uh what's our next meeting? July 10. We're open to working with you, whatever. My my concern is July 10th, and Reel can speak to this, requires us to produce plans like in two weeks to get back to him for review. I I don't
And my engine is not even the only The only thing I'm concerned about is like there's no August meeting, so that would be September, right? Um and is that sufficient time? I guess is >> Yes, September would be more than sufficient. I mean, August might be, but there's no meeting, so it's doesn't matter. But yes, September, she'll be
back in a week or so. our engineer. We will work with her immediately. I'll meet I'm I'm in town all summer except for one week. So, I'm I'm committed to working with staff and our engineer and and I'll propose. Whatever we come up with, I will share with the Buninis personally, you know, and and try and get them resolution.
>> I mean, I I think what I'm hearing here and I don't know if someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's not just the drainage? >> No. No. >> So, there have to be other things that are need to be addressed. So, is is to September sufficient time, do you think? Yes. For you to get that planned and
work with the city to try to come up with something that's more amendable? >> I do believe September is enough. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, and to you, I'm sorry that it's going to take a little bit more time, but I think that's a reasonable compromise. >> Do we want to um Does somebody want to make a motion for that?
>> Motion to continue to September meeting. >> Second. >> Second. >> Let me just get the exact date. It's September. >> September 18th. Motion to continue the September 18th meeting. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Kelly. Do we have a second?
>> Second. Second by Mr. Panic. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> Thank you. >> And just one request. Can they provide those instead of throwing them the night before or shortly before? or if if there's new plans, can they be sent to
the other parties involved? We have standing as neighbors well before so we can review them and have and have a and get ready for the meeting too. So hopefully they can have the plans to us before September. >> We can we can certainly ask that the sign appreciate it. Thank you. >> Yes.
>> Thank you everyone. >> Is there any do we have to have a motion to adjurnn or >> Yes. >> Otherwise we're stuck here. Okay. Make a motion to adjourn. >> All in favor?
>> Yes. >> Another