##VIDEO ID:APhJeNVjeO4## adjustment meeting of January 15 2025 our first meeting for the year uh we'll start with every I'll call the meeting to order it is 6:42 and if everyone will please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and we'll just go ahead in I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you all right may we please have a roll call yes Madam chair chairwoman Rosman Philip here Vice chairman dear made present board member mesir absent board member BL I was it was explained she's running late so I'll U make a notation when she arrives board member montine here board member each here board member Joseph absent and board member baretto here okay we have a quum thank you and our attorney Mr hell will go ahead and make the announcement to the audience thank you thank you so this announcement discusses the quasa judicial procedures that apply to the hearings on today's agenda these rules apply to applications on specific procs of land like zoning map amendments special exceptions variances and conditional use requests the board will sit like a court hence the term quasi judicial reviewing the facts presented at the hearing applying the adopted rules as explained by staff in the staff report and verbally board members can make site visits but must disclose the evidence upon which they intend to rely from that visit board members will disclose at the beginning of the hearing whether they've had Communications with individuals on behalf of the applicant or otherwise including who the communication was with and what the topic of the discussion was all persons intending to speak to the board will be sworn by the clerk the staff will make a presid presentation and the board may ask questions the applicant will then make a presentation including expert Witnesses if any and the board may ask questions when the public hearing is open the public can make comments on the application limited to 2 minutes each citizen testimony must be fact based not opinion the board may ask questions and the applicant's attorney if any may ask quot questions on cross-examination members of the public can decline to be cross-examined staff may present additional testimony to supplement or rebut arguments made the board deliberates based upon the evidence presented the board's decision must be based on competent substantial evidence meaning based on the record staff presentations expert presentations and fact-based comments by citizens according to the stands for approval set forth in the city code the board May then approve deny or continue the item while staff previously read into the record emailed or mailed comments since they are not competent substantial evidence for example not sworn testimony subject to cross-examination the board's decision cannot be based on what is contained in the emails or mail comments but they can be used to identify issues and help identify sources of information that do contain competent substantial evidence upon which a decision can be based written comments submitted before the meeting are part of the record and available for review by the board lastly we ask each of you to treat this proceeding with respect and proper decorum no calling out interrupting speakers or disrupting the proceeding please give this proceeding the same dignity and respect as if you were in court disruptions are prohibited and enforcable pursuant to the city code please also silence your cell phones thank you thank you and with that said uh for anyone who will be speaking on any of the items tonight whether you are the applicant or members of the public would like to speak on in favor of or against you would need to take the oath so if you would please rise anyone who plans to speak tonight please rise okay all right do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth um you may be seated would the gentleman there have to listen no okay counselor you said if you made a site visit you're supposed to so are you is your microphone on can you hear me let's do it on the record yeah ask me if you if you make a side visit you should announce that this part of the disclosure okay all right and if you intend to rely on anything from your visit you should try and summarize what it is you learned so it can become part of the record all right when each individual item is okay okay got you thank you all right any Amendment to the agenda no chair okay yes my apologies we're taking so we will be hearing items two and three three so we're going a little bit out of order so we'll be hearing items two items three and then we will go back to item one okay thank you uh approval of the minutes from November 20th move move by Mr McDade and seconded by Chief PE before you vote there are two Corrections yes or maybe there's just one um at one point in the minutes it says attorney held announced the procedures and I was not at the meeting it would have been attorney vuela yes that's true penuel attorne yes palel Alex also on the last item there was a vote of 5 to Zer this is item V-1 15-24 the record should reflect that Mr MC made accused himself thank you Mr held okay with the correction seconded I mean moved by Mr MC made and seconded by Chief e all in favor any oppose okay Communications Debbie thank you chair so as of now we have our director Debby love good morning Madam good morning good after evening Madam chair and board members my name is Debbie love I'm the director of development services um as you know before you had appeared many times Mr cook Mr cook is no longer with the city he has a great opportunity and we wish him well in the meantime your new liaison is going to be Safi Ben and uh tonight is her first night doing it all by herself so I am here to give her just just moral support and uh I appreciate your time this evening and thank you for joining us we appreciate you thank you thank you all right and with that being said we'll start with the first Con well uh items two which is South uh se-5 d24 special exception to permit a nightclub use at 1099 North West 119th Street and they have two items tonight uh they have that one and number three which is uh the variance v- 1624 uh variance to the minimum distance separation for nightclub used also 1099 Northwest 119th Street so Madam chair um staff concluded today that that there is an additional variance that's required for this application it's a variance from soundproofing requirements so the question that I was going to try and discuss with the applicant before the hearing but did not get an opportunity to is whether she wanted to go forward on the variance the distance separation variance tonight or to um because she's going to have to come back for the soundproofing variant and at the time she comes back for the soundproofing variants to have the special exception but we've concluded that the special exception for that item cannot be heard tonight because of the outstanding variance for soundproofing so the question for the applicant if she' come forward can you translate for us what good evening my name is you have the microphone good evening my name is j k okay do you and you're the applicant on this application yes sir okay does she understand about the decision that she needs an additional variance for soundproofing [Music] we have taken measures when it comes to sound proofing and we have tools like for example here okay so those are factors that would go into approval of the variance which has not been advertised for tonight so you would have to come back and present those soundproofing factors to the board at a future date and the question is do you want to go forward on the other variants on distance separation knowing that you have to come back for two other items the special exception and the variance for sound proofing I can continue or whatever you may decide I'm at your service okay so what is uh staff's preference that they come back yes staff's preference would be that they come back and and that the board hears all three um at the same time yes sir okay so um um that recommendation is going to be made to the board and they'll take a vote on continuing your item um can we do it for next month yes sir okay so the decision on items two and three is that they would prefer to come back next month after which they've been uh given the opportunity to file an application for a variance on sound gr and they hear all three items together so the we need a motion from the board to continue items two and three to next month to continue do we have a second second with uh I yeah you know I made a site visit today I don't know how you're going to sound soundproof that please it's not our issue okay uh because second okay so it's been moving seconded uh all in favor I oppos okay okay so your item is continued to next month you should probably meet with staff after the hearing but not necessarily tonight okay gracias okay okay Mr and just to put on the record that date would be February 19th thank you all right then we'll go back to item number one which is v- 0624 a variant to legalize an existing nonconforming additional dwelling unit at 445 Northwest 136 Street is the applicant okay so staff go ahead and give us the background information good evening chair safy vaname senior planning Tech um's land use divis land use division so the item we have before you is v624 a variance a variance to Article 5 Division 1 Section 5-12 e 1 and 2 of chapter 29 of the city of North Miami code of ordinances Land Development regulations to allow a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot whose size is 6,500 ft which is smaller than the required 12,500 ft and a building size of 258 ft which is which does not meet the minimum square footage requirement of an Adu of 500 ft on the property located at 445 Northwest 136th Street in the R2 District said Maran is to be reviewed under the criteria set forth in article 3 division 6 section 3- 606 of the ldrs so the item we have at hand tonight is a Varan to legalize an existing non-conforming additional dwelling unit better known as an Adu the the structure was constructed without building permits and was cited by The Neighborhood Services Department and an attempt to rectify the situation the applicant came to the building department applied for after the- fact building permit however it was denied by zoning so pursuant to Article 5 Division 1 section 5-12 of the ldrs the applicant seeks a variance to per to permit an existing Adu adus are permitted in the R1 and R2 zoning District however there are three CR different criterias that staff looks at one the lot size two the unit size must be 500 ft feet or 25% of the principal structure and three the characteristics of the Adu must match the principal structure so in with this variance the applicant is requesting two things to permit the Adu on a lot that is smaller than the required 12,500 and with a to permit the Adu with a unit size that doesn't meet the required 500 square ft so looking at the characteristics of the neighborhood we we are in a single family neighborhood we have single family dwelling units to the north south east and west and we are located in the R2 zoning District so to the right we have a survey and S plan of the property the structure is located in the rear of the property and it does comply with the required setbacks to the left we have the floor plan of the structure and the code states that if there's a secondary kitchen living and bathroom area with air conditioning then the structure is considered an to be an Adu and it's also important to note that the structure does have mechanical and plumbing within so when we have when we have variances that come before you there are six different criterias that staff looks at and in order to gain a positive recommendation from staff you have to meet four out of the six so when going through our analysis we looked at criteria number one do special cons conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands structures or buildings in the same zoning District staff says no there are no special conditions or circum or circumstances which exist peculiar to the land structure or building involved not applicable to other lands for number two the unusual circumstances or conditions NE necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property staff says no there are no unusual unusual circumstances or conditions criteria number three the the requested variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the subject regulations particularly as it affects the stability and appearance and appearance of the city staff says yes the basic intent of section 5-12 is to promote and encourage the creation of legal detached accessory dwelling units in a manner that enhances residential neighborhoods and helps residents meet their housing needs the requested variant seeks to legalize the existing non-conforming detach Adu in a manner that will not negatively impact the appearance of the neighborhood or city the requested variance does not affect the subject property and given the setback in height complies with the R2 district and it does not pose any negative impacts to the surrounding um lcks number four the literal interpretation of the Pres of of the provisions of these ldrs will deprive will deprive the applicant of the right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning District staff says no the reasonable use of the land building or structure is not deprived by the construction of the of the Adu criteria number six the variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land staff says yes the requested variance will allow the applicant to legalize the existing non-conforming Adu without the variance the applicant will required to demolish the structure or remove the kitchen the bathroom and the mechanical and the plumbing within the structure and accordingly staff is of the opinion that the most reasonable use of the structure will be through the legal legalization and this boa variance application lastly the graning of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these ldrs and such variants will not be inj injured to the area involved staff says yes the requested variance will legalize the existing non-conforming Adu constructed without building permits this process will allow for the for the property for the property to be reviewed by the building department and a permit to be issued for the non-conformity furthermore the conditions of approval will ensure this will ensure the occupancy restrictions for adus within section 5-12 E8 are upheld to protect the stability of their neighborhood in the area involved as well as ensuring the EU serves the housing needs of the city so as previously stated in order for staff to give you guys a positive recommendation you have to meet four out of the six this this following application does not meet the four out of the six however sta so staff recommends denial however should the board to move to approve this request we do list the following conditions these conditions are from our code from section 5-10 to which governs adus and with that that um concludes my presentation thank you applicant excuse me Madam chair I have to announce I did a site visit we'll we'll go ahead and let the applicant present and then went before the board I guess we didn't do disclosures we we should do now and then you can talk about yourself can we do disclosures now sure we should have done before the St report okay okay are there any yeah good any disclosure from the board nope nope I I did a site visit I knocked on the door to get an answer okay and I looked at the property was best I could see I couldn't see the actual uh ad a yeah the the unit in the back with a fence in front of it so okay thank you no we are okay so now we're ready to hear the applicant name and address please good evening Madame chair Mickey morero of law firm of perel Fernandez in work at 200 South bcan Boulevard with me today my colleague Michael yannopoulos who just passed out a handout to you all and we have Noel and Anna Castillo the property owners and if if I could just ask I just ask so you could see some neighbors that are here that are supporting the application that came with them um and and I think there's others coming but we we got started pretty early um I also what Mich yes wasn't that yeah what Michael passed out to you uh we prepared just just to start uh he he spoke to many of his neighbors couldn't get everyone like you said sometimes you're not going to adore and they're not there but we did get signatures of support from 15 immediate Property Owners we provided a map so you could see how close they are to the property um so just to get started here uh I our office was not retained initially uh Mr Castillo and his wife were working with the city trying to handle the application on their own they went into a little roadblocks we just got hired to to assist and help with the hearing and and finalizing the application with that since we did not submit the original letter of intent we submitted a supplemental letter of intent which should be in your file uh and that includes a different view on the criteria while we think staff did an excellent job we actually have a slightly different view We believe We Do qualify for more than four of the criteria and I will say to start staff did provide some conditions should you all approve it we're comfortable with all those conditions uh and I'll explain that a little bit more uh first of all the property these folks moved into this property they bought this property in 2016 they've lived in this property in this neighborhood for almost 10 years uh they' have a great relationship with their neighbors they love their they love their property they love their put their home one of the issues is it's a very small house the the actual house is about 800 give you the exact number 894 Square F feet it's a single family home but it's smaller than many apartments in its size so they needed to increase the size of their livable area while it does meet some of the criteria of an accessory or additional dwelling unit the reality is that these folks today are not using it that way um but we will agree to the conditions and we wanted to follow through with the process it's the best way to get it approved should they have a relative that comes into town and wants to live with them temporarily there may be a possibility that someone does stay there that's not the intention today but but we're okay with the conditions that limit who can stay there and that type of thing the the their existing home is 894 sare F feet Mr Castillo unfortunately did do this without a permit that was his mistake but he's been trying to legalize it since it became an issue he really needs this this for his family space there is a very small bathroom there's only one bathroom in the home and it's a little bit busy so that's part of the reason he built this and he needed an area for storage of his materials and he just didn't have enough room in the house for that that's really what it was there while it says that there's a kitchen really the kitchen's just a portable sink there's no oven there's no stove there's nothing to cook with there's some cabinets which she's using for storage and a sink which is the same type of sink I have in my laundry room one of those that you can move around that's all that's there um but again we believe that because the way the code requires accessory dwelling units or additional dwelling units to be 500t minimum that would be 55% of the size of the primary home um we we we far exceed the 25% minimum so that part we're not seeking a variance from it is a very very uh small lot the the code says you need 12,500 if you followed that they would never be able to have any accessory structure in the house so this we believe that qualifies for one of the criteria that wasn't addressed but at the end of the day what we have is a homeowner that's been in this property for almost 10 years they have outgrown The Limited size of that of their home and they needed a little more area they've done so with the support of virtually all of their neighbors um we don't believe we have any obors we have lots of folks in support we don't believe this variance is going to hurt or impact anybody negatively we believe the fact that we're agreeing with all those conditions is evidence of that in addition you have evidence from all the folks that the folks that are here but more importantly the 15 homeowners that signed a petition in support of this request so at this point the structure is built it is unfortunate that he did so without a permit since he found out about the issue he's taken every measure uh to try and resolve it they have some limitations with with the language which is part of why we came in but we're asking today we're here to answer any questions that you have but we think it's a pretty simple request a very small addition it would make them living in this house a lot more manageable with the limited size that they have and with that we would ask your your your approval here to answer any questions that you have thank you all right thank you with that uh I will open public hearing is there anyone who would like to speak on this item whether it's for or against state your name and your address and we remember it's two minutes I believe me I know um good evening my name is Veronica SM I live at 540 Northwest 127th Street I personally do not live I live in District 4 but don't live close to Mr Castillo but I've been here the three times that he's been here trying to get this resolved and as um an active member of the community and seeing how land is very is at a premium here and affordable housing is at a premium here I'm actually here in support of this gentleman getting this approved because doing anything with the city it is a tedious process Pro and I've seen how much he has tried I actually getting on the highway can see his house from the the on ramp and I mean if the neighbors don't have any objection to it then neither do I thank you anyone else speaking in favor or against okay we'll close public hearing uh board discussion I have have a couple of question for the applicant if I may Mr Berto thank you to the lawyer yes yes um this is the third time that this application has been in front of this board um I'm not sure the original application said that is for storage then um it seems that has a kitchen and then that will convert it in a dwelling unit but my question is what do you want do you want to be a dual unit uh and and the second is based on the on the drawings and the plans that you presented uh there is no window uh I don't know that that will be to have a a extra dual unit dual unit with the window it's very strange then I would like to understand those two things sure and I'll answer that CU we've talken about it so again the because it has a bathroom and because it is not physically tied to the main structure and because again I don't believe it's a kitchen I think it's just a sink there's no stove there's no oven but but I wasn't part of the original submission the the city characterizes an additional dwelling unit for you're you're you're correct right now the goal is to use it as storage in fact I have a very similar structure I hoping they got a permit I inherited from my prior owner but I have a structure very similar in the back of my house I have the same type of sink we have our laundry there and we use it for storage does happen to have a window my wife and I have have joked her dad wants to move to Miami we're like well Bush comes to show we could maybe fit him in there but it's not we use it as storage and laundry for now that that's what they're using it for today he he has a he doesn't speak English his wife doesn't speak English so I think explaining some of the things were challenged but in speaking to him the intention today is not to use it today as an inal dwelling unit but I explained to him there are conditions here we went over the conditions should someone want to stay in property in the future a family member moved down maybe somebody comes from his home country they we have the approval for that to happen so I we're okay with it that way but the truth of the matter is right now is not nobody will be living there right now but but then following question then will be the appan willing to install a window in that dwelling unit he says see okay so what what he's saying you may have understood what he's saying is his intention right now is for storage he doesn't really need a window but should and we can make this a condition should a should a relative or someone move in that complies with the conditions he would add a window and get a permit for the window that's what he said thank you that's good we we're happy to add that condition okay anyone else before I say something one thing so you're comfortable uh council with um um with moving ahead with this with a is your mic on mic is not on that it not be used as a dwelling unit it's not it's not again it's odd because there were the is yes he he'd be okay with that condition because he's not using it for that now that being said it's being requested as an additional dwelling unit this was before I got involved so wouldn't mind keeping the option open but if that was a requirement he really needs a structure as a storage unit so we'd be okay with that condition because he's not using it that way but I think it would be contradictory to the approval why impose that condition if it would satisfy the requirements and they're agreeing to all the conditions as if it were a dwelling un mhm yeah okay okay okay that's all I'm okay I I'm just trying to understand and I hear Mr berer asking that maybe if he wants to add a to me it just seems like we are opening up a can of worms in that sense because we already know what the requirements are for the adus and looking at the 12,000 feet square feet lot pretty much almost none of the current homes in North Miami will satisfy it so now we're allowing this one house and I do get it uh you know it's after the fact we're looking at trying to help this individual but I I would rather say okay and I know the attorney me not agree with me but if we're saying this we just don't want him to lose the expense the fact that it's been built but let's not encourage it to be a Adu if it really doesn't meet a Adu I don't know that's just me okay so along the lines of what um our chairwoman is saying my question is why not consider this a shed um application or uh non-conforming shed so the reason why we are not considering this as shed is because in the plans that was provided to staff it shows a bathroom it shows a kitchen it shows there's mechanical it shows plumbing and it shows that there is a see within the the structure however we can move forward as a shed if the applicate if the applicant decides to remove all of those items within the structure and then we could proceed in that manner and and I would just in response to that again there I think there's a little there is a bathroom that'll be hard to move but what what we're calling a sink is like a is a mobile what we're calling a kitchen is a mobile sink you also you can't cook in there you mentioned on the record that there wasn't a stove or anything else that's correct there is not a stove saying there so per the plans that were provided to staff it states kitchen so that's where we are going off that there is a kitchen that was but there really isn't a kitchen I mean they might say that on the pl but it's really not a kitchen so the plan shouldn't reflect that there's a kitchen I I I guess man May okay chief each look let's have the flexibility in a little bit of Common Sense here the structures built the man's using it as storage the ordinances are such that okay they're classifying it as a as a living dwelling because there's a commode in there and it's a small scent all right that that's extremest nonsense let's the man's using it right now for storage all of his neighbors are in agreement with it why not why put him through the bureaucratic process are putting in a window unless someone's going to move in there we got these conditions in case it's going to become a living dwelling in the future I said let's get on with it the man's doing the best he can with water it let's approve the project and let's move on his all of his neighbors support him it's not harm in the neighborhood it's not an ugly dwelling it's not oversized we we're we're encouraging uh small dwellings for people we're going to just put this man through the ringer for no reason and that's why we are the board of adjustment and we have to use common sense and I'm going to quote William Jennings Brian he said when the law and common sense cide let us always hope that Common Sense prevails and I think in this case it's common sense and I'm in favor of supporting it and letting the poor guy go about his business and we're not opening a Pandora's box or anything like that I I just oh Chief I bear to disagree because the once North Miami passed they ordinance that they could have adus it opened up you don't know and things are being built in North Miami and North Miami code enforcement does not know so I'm just saying and I understand about the gentlemen I'm not saying that but I'm just saying for our people who are looking at this and say oh well it happens it's just the same thing we know that there shouldn't be uh Airbnb but airbn are operating in our city this should be an Airbnb no no no I'm just saying so as things are being built and people say I didn't know you don't build something that size and not know that you have to go somewhere you can't even put a door I haven't changed the my front door because now if I change it I have to pull a permit because it has to open on the outside rather than open on the inside so there are certain things that we should know I want to help the gentleman but let's be clear let's put it on record so that those who are listening and watching don't know oh I have to just come and say I wasn't aware I'm Sorry Miss meste thank you I apologize if I missed this in the packet um did the building department um do an inspection and approve the structure they would it was did denied it was brought forward to code and code and it was brought forward to zoning in was denied because it doesn't meet the requirements and just for the record um I wrote that section of the code after doing analysis as to why you have 12,500 Square ft has to do with density that's the reason you have that 12,500 square foot limit um and that would allow about two to 300 Lots in the city would qualify for that uh and unfortunately this one does not so but it's because of density the 12,500 nothing nothing other than that so that it doesn't it it when you do it that way it actually meets our comprehensive plan requirement for density so in this case it would not um and so you have to make that decision but no the it was denied um Madam Mony Madame sherff when when ready if I may respond to a few things I'm so good Ahad no thank you so I was going to say yes he he has he got here because he applied for a permit um to legalize it and it was denied because of the zoning issue but obviously the structure will building department will need to inspect it in order for him to obain obtain a permit if he gets approval here he can proceed with those inspections and they will be required there's something that doesn't meet requirement of the building department he would then have to modify it as for the building code um we believe it will pass but it will have to go through that as to your concerns Madam chair I I I would say since a variance is specific to the facts of each case and the facts of each property you are not setting precedent you are looking at each Case Case by case and I can I'm happy again this is sort of a little bit of a a little form over substance because at the end of the day I think Mr reach understands this really isn't going to be increasing density in the reality we can put a condition that if anyone lives there just again because nobody is for now it must be a relative of the owner that way really not that could be in their home regardless so it's not another family it doesn't increase density he just wants to have the storage unit he it was a big investment for him to build it he did make a mistake and getting without a permit but he really needs a space doesn't want to move from the home he likes where he lives it's just too small if you actually see it I looked at the pictures I mean it's not a kitchen you can never really cook there it's not M sh I go ahead okay um I'd like to make a motion to approve the item uh with a stipulation that in the event Council please guide me on this um that um that anyone who moves into the facility must be related to him you have the nine nine things right here okay all right um and uh together with the conditions that set forth by by the city and add a window no I'm not going to I'm not going to go there as is but but but could be a good thing if are will to wait wait here's my motion yes my motion is to approve the item with a stipulation that anyone who lives in that facility at a future date must be a direct relation of the owner that together with the conditions already established by the city upon approval of the item I think we need to keep it simple um I agree and you know let the man be on his way uh we're protecting the city and protect you know with the uh caveat about them being a direct relation uh together with the conditions already set forth by the city um I think that's substantial enough um to you know move the item along thank you do we have a second with the I second second second by Mr veret okay all right I'm okay okay so uh chairwoman Philip all right yeah um Vice chair mcar yes board member blle Pierre Lewis yes board member montine no board member each yes and board member baretto yes okay the motion passes 5 to one thank you all very much have a wonderful [Applause] evening thank you everyone you're welcome I got announce I have announce keep it like yeah yeah okay all right moving on along next item oh there have two items together s e 0324 special exception to permit a nightclub use at 1547 Northwest 119th Street and the second one is the variance uh to the minimum distance separation at such a add 1547 Northwest 1193 which is v- a24 go ahead Taff yes one second oh before any disclosure no no anyone else yeah I I visited the site today drove around the parking lot went to the next street observe the uh the I didn't go into inside the business but I obser the exterior of the business the neighborhood around it uh the residential side of it and uh that was my observation and I'll discuss that later Madam chair so uh we're we'll hold we'll hear both items together but you vote on the variance application first and then the special exception okay vote on the variance first got that got okay all right thank you madam chair as Gary said we will hear the variance item first vote on it and then we will proceed to the special exception so the item we have before you tonight is v- 824 a variance to Article 5 Division 9 section 5- 98 and section 5- 99 of chapter 29 of the city of North Miami quot of ordinances Land Development regulations to allow a proposed Nightclub at the property located at 5 1547 Northwest 119th Street to deviate from the minimum required spacing of 2500 ft from religious institutions and schools 1500 and 1500 ft from residential parks and similar uses said variance is to be reviewed under the criteria set forth in Article 13 division 5 Section 3504 and Article 5 Division 9 section 5- 98 of the ldrs so the application that we have before you is the applicant is seeking to vary the distance separation requirements um we are we will be deviating from the minimum required spacing of 2500 ft from religious institutions and, 1500 ft from residential buildings or Parks so right here you see a little bit of what I was speaking towards to the north right behind the property we do have a single family neighborhood to the east we have a commercial use to the South we have a commercial use and to the West just left of the property we have a place of assembly of church and to give you further context of the variance at hand this is an aerial image of the site as you as you could see right behind the site we have a single family neighborhood to the left we do have a church and a little bit further north we do have a kuas park all three of those uses need to be varied in that will be done through this this variance application process so as prev as previously stated when a variance comes before you there are six different criterias that staff looks at so once we get into it the first criteria that we look at is do special conditions and circumstances circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved staff says no no special conditions or circumstances exist the second criteria is the are there unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variant request that are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property staff is Staff says yes staff believes that no properties within the neighboring area can meet the distance separation requirements of section 5- 98 accordingly the code anticipate that variances will be heard to permit the requested uses this mechanism ensures that both City staff and the board are able to to review applications on a caseby casee basis to evaluate the merits of the applications based on the conditions relevant to the particular property in this in the case of this application the subject property is located rather closely to residential single family homes and right next door to a church our next criteria um does the requested variants maintain the basic intent and purpose of the subject regulations particularly as it affects the ability and appearance and appearance of the neighborhood staff says yes the requested variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the subject regulations the purpose of the subject regulations in this case the distance separation is to ensure that the location of establishments offering alcohol consumption as a primary use specifically bars and nightclubs do not disrupt the operation and use of other sensitive land uses including public parks schools residential uses and religious institutions the subject property is located within the C1 zoning District in an area primarily characterized by commercial uses fronting Northwest 19th Street surrounding the commercial and surrounding the commercial use are single family residents and other multif family residences accordingly staff does not anticipate the proposed variants to affect the stability nor the appearance of the neighborhood however the residences could be negatively affected with noise traffic congestion lack of parking and nuisance from alcohol consumption criteria six the literal interpretation of the provisions of these ldrs would deprive the applicant of PRS commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning District staff says no the literal interpretation of the provisions of the ldrs does not deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed the the applicant can still continue to use the building as a restaurant they would just have to close at 11:00 p.m. next criteria the the variance requested is a minimum variance that will make possible the the reasonable use of the land staff says no as previously stated the existing building and business can function in its existing capacity lastly the granting of the variants will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these ldrs and such variants will not be injured to the area involved staff says no the requested variant seeks to locate a use that is considered non-compatible close to sensitive us uses as deemed by the ldrs while the requested variants May uphold the general intent of the one zone neighborhood as the proposed use in itself supports the underlining permitted use of a nightclub there may be opportunity or circumstances where the proposed use will infringe on surrounding sensitive uses in other zoning District as such this request May risk undermining the Harmony and general intent of the ldrs with regards to neighboring zoning districts and the result may be injurious to the stability of the surrounding areas so as previously stated in order to gain positive recommendations from staff you must meet four out of the six criteria unfortunately this application does not meet four out of the six so staff is recommending denial however should the board move to approve the item we State the following conditions pursuant to Article 5 division 14 section 5-41 A parking agreement is to be prepared uh reviewed by legal and recorded with the county number two that accept the applicant is granted a boa variance to allow for for the deviations of of hours which alcohol sales are allowed in consumption of alcoholic beverages pursuant to the ldr section 5-1 1913 the applicant must comply with the sales with the sale of and consumption of alcoholic beverage standards number three where the installation of outdoor flood lighting or spot lighting as intended such lighting will not have any detrimental effect on neighboring property or traffic pursuance of 5-9 SE 5911 and 5- 912 the applicant must obtain a music and entertainment license number five no sales serving of or consumption of any alcoholic alcoholic beverages shall occur outside of the establishment number six that during the nightclub's hours of operations or any special events parties celebrations festivals ceremonies Etc no Ling Gathering standing waiting in vehicles shall be allowed at any time on the site or in off street parking locations number seven that signage is clearly posted that states no lering Gathering standing waiting vehicles and that security staff shall be president shall be presentent which may include off duty city of North Miami Police Officers during all events to monitor the site to prevent loitering Gathering standing waiting and vehicles for consumption of alcoholic beverages Outside The Establishment and lastly per 5- 910 nightclubs shall be soundproofed and their W shall be soundproofed and their Windows Doors and other openings kept closed in order that the noises there from may not disturb the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood and that will be done through building permits and that concludes my presentation is the applicant here hello Mora Bernard here for as an agent for the club the nightclub they are already a restaurant during the day I'm sorry state your name and address and then I have to get legal to tell whether or not you can speak on that because she says as an agent right state your name and address for the record again MOA Bernard and I am the agent for them and the address 1545 to 1547 Northwest 11 19th Street right what kind of Agents um just as far as their paperwork I do all their permitting register agent for the company for State of Florida just just their paperwork that's it nothing else I'm okay that okay I've been the one submitting everything she is aware Safi is aware okay okay do you want to add anything else after what I mean we I I believe that everything meets the criteria and what it not everything meets the criteria but we can meet all the conditions that are requested in order to be approved I can say that at this point we've requested certain temporary special event permits and we've never had an issue whatsoever um the noise is not outside nobody is loitering outside there's no music outside the building that particular area is soundproofed for that nightclub but if there's any permits that need to be obtained we would be willing to apply for them in order to get this approved and taken care of but they have they have been doing everything properly through the temporary event permits that they've requested when they've asked to stay open later than usual okay thank you that's it all right I'll open public hearing anyone for or against speaker Virginia Gilmore 1635 Northwest 120th Street I live in that neighborhood for 20 for 42 years that club is like from here to back there walking distance we've had COK Club we've had another club previous late night music shooting gang next to the gas station is drugs residents live right there the churches from here to maybe half way there um we do not need a nightclub there what they do is the street is blocked off at 16 to 120 when there's not enough parking they come over into our area and they walk and when they come over they walk and they drunk they sit at their car and talk all night and they're interfering with the residents I welcome a nice restaurant to sit down and eat but not a nightclub where I'm going to try to sleep at night and 2 3 3:00 in the morning this loud music Coco Club is gone and the other club used to gone we have shooting that they shoot and in the people's backyard the resident backyards so I will will not support this and I'm asking you guys not to support it give me a nice restaurant I can go sit down and eat but not a nightclub because sometimes they open these place as restaurant and they sell illegal drinks under the counter and this is what's going on in North Miami we do not need that anymore on the west side of North Miami I'm here to say no do not support this thank you I'm back Veronica Gusman 540 Northwest 127th Street I just wanted to point out that the presentation had a different address which was from the previous um nightclub that I was against um the church that's there because there was a comment made last time when I was against the nightclub stating that we can't control these popups that happen in the plazas this church has been there since uh 2010 so it's not it's an established church it's not a new church um I am not for again on the east side beautiful construction 24 story um apartment buildings and District 4 does not get the same share of the same things we do not want a nightclub I don't know why the variants they didn't stay how late they want to stay open because the nightclub that I was against lowkey Lounge um got a variance for 3:00 in the morning so I don't I understand and appreciate that business owners need to make money and they want to stay open later than 11: because that's when they can make money but we don't want another nightclub um if some again if something can be done to help out the business owner I'm all for it but I'm against it as well thank you thank you good evening my name is gin souvenir I'm located on 1580 Norwest 120 Street the night club is there is a corridor this is my house this is the nightclub and the church is right there she is she doesn't speak Spanish but she's my neighbor she's uh 1570 she yeah she's 15 so we neor so the night club this is the night club this is our house we don't need night club I've been there before the reason I say so once they broke my gate but I was so aggressive that night it was 2: a.m. in the morning they broke it why TW once I fix it there is another time they broke it when they fight and I cash them so I want there I make sure they fix it number one number two they so because they little Corridor between us if you see my house because my gate is this is my gate this is the real Corridor my house sometime when they fight when sometime at night whatever they drink they throw everything all dirty dirty dirty dirty cops all over when come in the morning have to clean them up and they make noise to even she said that the music is not high but sometime when they drunk they come out they fight they punch my gate everything or they fight so I don't my business they want to do the business like I say I don't against nice Resturant but in club no especially she doesn't speak English I have two babies she got two babies some sometime you see some words you know there in some some expression you don't have to hear about sometime the babies in the yard sometime they stay 9:00 sometime they come midnight Sometimes they come in the afternoon too we find so many Nos and sometime the church sometime function sometime special sometime Saturday sometime they come on they got they drun they forgot to go home they until 12:00 noon they making nose so we don't want that thank you so very much we can stand especially for her she got two babies she doesn't speak English but we neor I'm 1580 she's 1570 and if you call if you if you I'm so sorry to have to cut you off but your two minutes your two minutes are up but thank you so much we appreciate thank you very much we don't mind for the business for the night for the restaurant but nightclub no definitely no this what dangerous because they got drugs they got everything like they shooting we we getk thank you so [Laughter] much she right behind she's taking the minutes of the other lady that's what it is okay anyone else for or against close public hearing board discussion over there today the parking area is right on top of the residential over there I'm definitely against this project I I think it's prop posterous they want to stay open till 4:00 in the morning they want to stay open till 4:00 in the morning 7 days a week the residential area is right right behind it it's a nice neighborhood these people wouldn't get any rest I I I'm totally against this project I in fact I'd make a motion now to deny it any other discuss um yeah um I I agree with commissioner each you know we all want to welcome business into the city but I think when um it begins to infringe on the rights and the peace and enjoyment um of our residents um I think that that trumps um business interest in many cases um and particularly since the city has um asked has asked for denial um I I would like to Second commissioner each's motion okay I think it's too close to the residential area and I think um is a a factor to um affect the the residents around then I also will be opposed to that Miss anything else from uh Miss Pier Lewis nothing okay I so the motion would be on the Varian this is item v 0824 yeah that's okay I'm going to go ahead and take roll call we're going to start with chairwoman phelip and the motion is to deny correct the motion is to deny yes yes okay Vice chair mcar ma yes board member Pierre Lise yes board member monine yes board member each yes to the n and board member Barto yes to the N yeah okay the motion passes unanimously 6 to Z okay we should have a separate motion on the special exception special exception okay I make a motion that we deny the special exception second okay roll call sorry hold on a second the motion was uh to deny by seconded um chairwoman fed yes Vice chairman dear yes board member Pierre Lise yes board member monine yes board member each yes and board member Barto yes motion to deny passes unanimously 60 okay all right is that no we got new uh old business any old business no any new business besides there no ma'am uh Madam chair yes so uh going back to the minutes that were approved at the beginning of the meeting I believe there is also something about attendance that to the board members one or two were identified as present and they were not um board member Shields and board member Joseph right so that would be corrected as well okay thank okay thank you by by the way Madam chair uh safy congratulations great job you well no need to be nervous motion to adjourn so move all right all in favor I I app listen 7th Avenue is acceptable but