Good evening and welcome to uh the November 19th, Wednesday, November 19th uh meeting of the board of adjustment, right? Call to order. I know. So, who would like to Bernardet?
Would you do the honors of the pledge of allegiance for us? >> Okay, Chief can do it. >> Put your hand over your heart. Keep your hands in your pocket. Pay me off. 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. >> Okay. Good evening. I'm going to go ahead and take roll call. So, Chairman Rob Flint >> here.
>> Um, Vice Chair McDermade I heard was excused. Um, board member Bernardet Pierre >> here. Board member Dana McLuis Finolon >> here. >> Board member Marlene Monestine
is absent. Um, board member Kenneth >> here. Board member Mark Bob is absent and board member Hector Medina.
>> We have a quorum. >> Okay, Mr. Chair, next on the agenda is my reading of the the summary of quasi additional procedures. Go ahead and >> do that. These rules apply to applications on specific processes of
land like zoning map amendments, special exceptions, variances, and conditional use requests. The board will select 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 each hearing whether they have had communications with individuals on behalf of the applicant or otherwise, including who the communications with and what the topic of the discussion
was. All persons intending to speak to the board shall be sworn by the clerk. The staff will make a presentation and the board may ask questions. The applicant will 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 two minutes each. Citizen testimony must be fact-based, not opinion. The board may ask questions, and the applicant's attorney, if any, may ask 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 then deliberates based on 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 standards for approval set forth in the city code. The board may then approve, deny, or continue the item. While staff
previously read into record, emailed their staff comments since these 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 mailed 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 made. Written comments submitted before the board 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 proceedings the same dignity and respect as if you were in court. Disruptions are prohibited and enforceable pursuant to the city code. Please also silence your cell phones.
Thank you. Okay, we'll go on to the approval of minutes. >> All those in favor? the approval of minutes from September 17th, 2025. >> Mhm. >> I I >> I. All those in favor?
>> I Okay. >> I'm so sorry. Uh I know that Chief, you seconded. Yeah. >> Who made the motion? >> Dr. Medina. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Do we have any communications? >> No. Chairman.
>> Okay. Okay. I think we skipped the the quasid judicial oath, the swearing of the witnesses. >> Yes, we did. I went right on to that. I'm sorry. >> Okay, >> Cynthia, that's you. >> Okay. Um, anyone who intends to speak on
the quasi judicial items, I would need you to please stand at this moment to take an oath. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Um, 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?
>> Thank you. You may be seated. >> Okay. I understand that some people are appearing by video. >> Yes. Um, our second applicant, Mr. Perry Loway. >> Is he on? >> Yeah, I'm here. >> Okay. >> Okay. Can you confirm that you took the
oath? >> No, I am. >> Okay. Raise your right hand and we'll do it again. or affirm that >> Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence that you are about to give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Uh, I >> thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. We're down to continue petitions. >> No continued petitions. >> Okay. New petitions.
>> Yes. Okay. this out. V1525, a variance to the minimum distance separation for beauty salons, 11073 Northeast 125th Street. >> Good evening, chair. For the record, my
name is Safy Bame, planner for the community planning and development department. So, as you stated, this is variance V-15-25, a variance to article 5, division 2, section 5-2203 of chap of chapter 29 of the city of
North Miami, code of ordinances, land development regulations to allow a beauty to allow a beauty salon to be located 885 ft away from another beauty salon where a minimum distance separation of 1,500 ft is required at
the property located at 1073 Northeast 125th Street in the C3 zoning district. Said variance is to be reviewed under the criteria set forth in article 3, division 6, section 3-606 of the LDRs.
So, as previously stated, this first item before you is a variance to allow a beauty salon within 1500 ft of another beauty salon. per section 5-2203 of our code, there is a a distance separation for beauty salons, barber shops,
convenience stores, and tax preparation stores. And that is 1500 ft. So, because this does fall within that 1500 ft and has a distance of 885, they are here before you um seeking a variance. So, this property is located right on
along northeast 125th Street in our C3 zoning district. Um to the north is a V is a parking lot, to the east is a office building, the south is a nursing center, and to the west is another office building.
And then here we have the proposed floor plan. So it is a multi there are multiple offices in the building. So they're just um renting out one of the spaces within it. And in here you can see the radius map that the applicant was required to submit to staff as part of their um
preliminary review of their certificate of use process. And their radius map did show that they are 885 ft away from another existing beauty salon store. So when staff did our analysis, we did find that they did not meet any of our
six criteria. So when looking at our criteria for criteria number one, do special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or buildings involved and which are not applicable to other land structures or other buildings in the same zoning districts. Staff says no no
other special conditions or circumstances exist. All hair salons are subject to this distance separation requirement. Um, number two, the unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating this variance are present in the neighborhood and are not unique
to the to the property. For this one, staff says no. The circumstances necessitating the variance are not unique as I did state that any hair salon looking to open in the C3 zoning district is subject to this distance separation requirement.
Number three, that the requested variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the subject regulations, particularly as it affects the stability and appearance of the city. We say no. The purpose of the LDRs is to prevent oversaturation of certain businesses. Um
staff did find that these beauty salons, barber shops, convenience stores, they're popping up pretty frequently and pretty closely in the C3 zoning district. So, this provision was put in place to kind of separate them as much as um as much as possible. For number four, the literal
interpretations of the provisions of these LDRs would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the zoning district. Staff says no. The um the applicant is able to utilize the space. They um would just have there are plenty of other uses that are allowed in the C3 zoning district.
They would just have to pick one of those. Um criteria number five, the requested variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land structure or building. Um, no. Like I said, there are still permitted uses allowed in the C3 zoning district that the applicant could
apply for. And lastly, number six, the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these LDRs. And such variants would not be injurous to the area involved. Although putting a beauty salon there would not be in injurious to the area, the general intent of the LDRs
to prevent too many of the same businesses from being so close to each other. Um, this is along Northeast 125th Street. we do want to see um a nice balance of different commercial establishments along our commercial corridor. So that's one of the reasons why this provision was put into place as
well. >> Okay. >> So as you know in order for staff to um make a positive recommendation for a variance they do have to meet four out of the six. In this case the applicant did not meet any of staff's criteria. So
staff is recommending denial. However, if the board does choose to um approve this variance tonight, we do ask that the applicant finish out their certificate of use and BTR process and become licensed within the city. >> And that is all for me and we do have um
the applicant and their representatives here with them. >> Okay, Mr. Chair, before we go to the applicant, we didn't do disclosure. So, if any of the board members have had any contact with um anybody other than staff like uh the
applicant or other citizens or neighbors, you supposed to disclose that at this point and just tell the topic of the discussion if there have been >> have none. >> None. >> None. >> Thank you.
>> Sir, would you like to come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record, please? My name is Lazro Remon. I live right behind that establishment, 1155 Northeast 126th Street. I'm at the Gardens. First and foremost, I'm not an attorney. I'm just
someone that's stepping in for someone that didn't come in. I am familiar with the business. Uh, and I understand that these rules are meant for not to be a a conglomerate of businesses with salons, but being that this is right behind the
gardens and we have this complete increase in population there. And of course, getting a haircut, doing your nails, if it's anything like my wife does, it's a monthly ordeal. So, I understand that these laws are here for for there not to be an increased uh
amount of salons, but the salon is great. And what we're trying to do is to try to benefit one the gardens, but not only the gardens, all the the the all the uh residents in the area. So, I understand that the six haven't been
met, but you know, being that I'm just coming in and understanding this a little bit more. On top of that, we just found out, you know, in in conversation that apparently there we've we've been acting from information that we don't know because there seems to be some sort
of hack and a breach that we just found out about because we've paid all our fees to come before this good board. And now we find out that there's another email that's been asking her for money saying that.
And I I I brought it up. We just found this out within the last 30 minutes and they've been asking her after we've paid the 3,400 to the city completely paid off. They're still asking for $4,800. >> So, m Mr. Chair, so who is the who is
the email to? >> Well, the email is to Mrs. Grady, of course. >> Was she the applicant? >> She is the applicant. >> Okay. >> Okay. Like I said, I'm I'm not her attorney. I'm just a representative for the for them that I'm kind of getting just mixed in. >> Just a friend. You're a neighbor.
>> Yeah, you can name it neighbor. You can name it neighbor. But of course, you know, once I'm asked for help, it's very hard for me to say no. Especially if it's a resident here because I do have history in this city and I do have a love for this city. So, when approached with Go ahead, sir. >> Who is the email from?
>> May I May I confirm that with the >> Do you have a copy of the email? >> Uh, I can most definitely send it to you. We literally just found this out >> in conversation as we were coming in. So, the email actually says that they're recommending for approval if we paid the
money. >> That sounds like a scam. >> Correct. >> The fees that were paid, were they paid to the city or did you actually pay to these email perpetrators? >> No. Luckily, once I got involved within the last hour, cuz basically the person
that was supposed to be here wasn't, I was asked to come. I do know the business in terms of the of of how it's set up because I've been to the place, but I don't I I I just found this out. The main >> Nothing has been paid in reaction. >> Yeah. Correct. Correct. So, that was my
first my first line of defense is has anything been paid? Typically, when we go through our trainings here in the city, in my my past lives here in different cities, we look at the emails. One of the emails looks a little bit funky. Doesn't look like it would come from northmiami.gov.
So, we haven't paid anything, but in it, it in in that in that discussion when I went and I looked at it, it's coming from a email that we don't know and they're accepting. So, the reason that I may not be the reason that I may not be well informed is because
we're going under the premise that this would be approved if we paid that money even though we haven't. >> I think we should just forget about the email now, sir. >> And let's deal with the application. >> Yes, sir. >> And what I would like to do is have the applicant just state her name for the record.
>> Absolutely. >> And confirm that she wants you to speak on her behalf. >> Absolutely. No problem. There there is a a bit of a language barrier. So, I'm going to I'm going to just be translating in full transparency for the board to know. >> Hello.
>> Into the microphone. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> My name is Grety. >> Address for the record. Okay. And to confirm that you want him to speak for you? Yes,
>> it's like attorney in fact. >> Okay, >> that's it. Thank you. >> So, I would appreciate for the board's information >> an explanation of how the beauty salon came into being because
um were there representations? Was there an existing salon there previously that she took over the space or she built out the salon? >> Oh, correct. Uh, Mr. ID, the in in this case, there was a barber shop that was there according to the records that I've
seen and apparently the barber shop owner that was there passed away. So, basically, she's just taking over that space at the moment. So, at the moment, that's what's going on. I'm not exactly you know how something like that would
work. I'm not sure if in full transparency if even that barber shop was operating under the premise in the CU and the BTR if they were even operating within that premise. >> I just I just want to make note that staff did do their research and we have
no record of a licensed business or licensed barber shop or beauty salon being at that location. So if it was operating staff does not have any record of that. >> Okay. And also for the record to notate that the way this variance got to the
board was because code enforcement became aware of the business and the not having the lensure and that's how it it came to be. >> Okay. Did the were there representations from
the owner of the property that she could run a beauty salon there? Do you know? >> May I? >> Yes. >> Okay. before she answers. I think we need to swear her in even though >> Okay, got it. >> So, can you do it in Spanish? >> Okay. Somebody's gonna have to trans.
>> If you give if you give me the words, I'll try very hard, but >> Okay. >> Go ahead. Okay. 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. >> I swear >> she can say it in there. >> Gracias. >> Okay. So the question was what what representations were made by the owner as to whether she could run a beauty
salon there. Barbaria. Okay. basically board and administration. She's saying that the owner did let her know that there was a barber shop that was operating there many years and that
the individual that was there passed away and in his passing they never renewed the license again. henceforth they needed to come before this board and ask them for this variance. >> Okay.
I just wanted to try and get some more information to help the board understand circumstances. >> That was very helpful >> that the application came forward on. >> So, do you have anything else for the board? >> No, I just wanted to make sure to kind of I guess just be a good friend and be
a good resident. I mean, it's it's it's a nice place, you know, in terms of of of the location, in terms of the fact that you have a 370 odd unit uh residence right behind it. I don't know what weight that will carry, but I can
sure tell you that it's very convenient to just walk 110 ft to have my wife's nails done and her and her Manny Petty. So, that I'll leave it at that. I don't know enough. >> Does she want to say anything? She want to say anything that you might translate
>> at this so she should know at this point the staff is recommending against the application >> and I'd say it's an uphill battle for her to get an approval. Crime doesn't count. >> Can I
cry? >> Can I ask her some questions? >> So, go ahead. Young Lady Hobin, I'm gonna ask you a question. How long you've been operating there?
Somebody should translate. Two years ago, I started operating there and I was assured by the owner that um there was a business a hair hairdresser before her and she just had to come and apply for but she's been my question was if she
how long she's been operating there it's been two years. So >> see and she has a lot of customers so at this point. So see the other barber shop that is with the 800 865.
>> So so that's this alone. That's my barber shop. So he they can handle the volume. Yeah. And now with the with the building that that's Sebastian building the garden. Yeah. Yeah. With Sebastian and the other building that is opening next to it plus the other building.
Yeah. They have plenty of business. So yeah. So plus Maria in front. Yeah, I can see that you're busy. Okay. So, >> sorry. >> We we Okay. We're going to see how we, you
know, handle this. >> Okay. >> You don't have to cry. We'll we'll do the best we can, but Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> I got a couple of questions. I'm ask you
>> can it on page four of the re on page four of the recommendations it says the proposed salon use is compatible with the surrounding commercial context along northeast 120th street and aligns with the city's goal of encouraging a diverse mix of neighborhood serving
businesses that u that enhances access to the to service and employment opportunities for residents. Now, you're saying one thing, but yet then I I know that we have certain requirements. The six of them obviously they don't make it, but you know, I I look at this and
you brought up a very good point about the apartment building over there with uh now and that apartment building is supposed to be commercial, residential, and retail. And you have 300 people living there. You have another apartment building going up across the street. And my question is this. Let me I got to ask
the staff this because I'm a little bit confused on this. I was thinking about this the other day and I when I walk down 123rd Street from Biscane Boulevard to the bay, I see numerous beauty salons, nail shops, uh so forth and so
on. Now this is this specifically our ordinance specifically says beauty salon. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So there is is there a difference between a beauty salon and a barber shop? Um, no. >> So, a barber shop would be prohibited
also? >> Yes. >> How about a nail place that just does nails? >> No, it would. They're not subject to the same distance separation. >> They're not subject to the same distance separation. The code specific barber shop, a nail salon, uh, a massage
>> something like that. The ones that are subject to the distance separation are beauty salons, barber shops, convenience stores, and tax preparation centers. >> Okay. >> Those are the ones that the code calls out specifically. I >> I know we also have it on um on 125th
Street with self storage. We put something in there. >> Yes, there's there's also a provision for self storage. >> What concerns me is I'm looking at this ordinance. I'm saying 800 ft it's kind of changing. uh we're going to get a lot of density in there. I I walked that
street. I to me it was, you know, an innocuous issue. It didn't it didn't really seem to impact uh it's not going to hurt competition. 800 and something feet. That that's my that's my theory on this thing, you know, and especially now as dense. We should go back and revisit
this. I really mean that. I I I have some issues with this. Uh, I want to see us like with the head shops with the uh smoke paraphernalia. We got them too close together. That we should be reissuing and saying, "Hey,
they got to be a distance." A beauty salon is not like a liquor store where it's going to pull the neighborhood down or degrade it or we're going to get undesirable. I shouldn't say a liquor store is going to pull the neighborhood down, but what what we're trying to do here is one competition a and two also
balance the public need and as density increases it's you just need more people. I mean I Lexus when I opened up I used to go up there every other week. You get a manicure, a pedicure, a haircut, a massage, whatever and your car washed
>> and that was a great idea. and and I I just think in this case when when I read the context which we have in here with staff put in here and I know that you're required by the six steps that we have to say no staff has to turn this down
but that's why you have the board of adjustment and I think in this case I I I'm I'm for saying go with it because it it makes sense for the future anyway. That's what I'm thinking. Board member Pierre,
>> I ju I just wanted to ask one question and if you can translate for me. Why did she wait two years before she applied for two years ago she came to the city? Yeah, I I I and and just from my own background information, I do know that
there was a gap also of a couple of months based on the board of adjustments meeting as well. I know that that added also because of lack of quorum. But I I do know that and in direct translation of what she's saying is she tried to apply for it and when they tried to
apply they said that they have to go before this board and that's why she finds herself here. Board member Pier. >> Okay. >> I just want >> board member Fenel. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. I just wanted to point out that the application was put in after they
received the code violations. >> So they were operating. So, let's say the barber shop was a licensed barber shop and they did have their licenses. They have 180 days from the time that barber shops closed to to come in and they would and they could apply and they wouldn't even have to go through this.
But because after that 180 days, that nonconformity expires, they then have to come into compliance with the current code. So, they've been operating for 2 years. Um, however, they just came in after that
code violation was given, which is why we're we're before you tonight. >> Another question. Does the person that she I'm I'm positively sure she's renting, right? >> They did not require her to get those BC
um BTR and C. >> That would that would have been between who she's renting from and them directly. that wouldn't have anything really to do with that. Okay. >> So, just the just so the board is aware, it would take three votes to approve the
variance. >> Okay. Board member Fenolan. >> Thank you. Um I guess I had a just I do have an issue with this um this regulation. Um I guess because of the
fact that you're saying that it's any hair salon. Um I my question would be or the problem I would have is that there are different kinds of hair, different kinds of services that could be provided. There's natural hair. There's folks who do only natural hair. There
are people who do, you know, only specific types. And so I guess my question and I that's why I have it problematic is that it's for any hair salon. So, in your research, do we know what type of hair or hair
salon the the one that is 880 something feet away? Are they similar? Are they offering the same kind of services? Because that would make a difference to me. >> Off the top of my head, um I I didn't look into that.
>> So, Mr. Chair, I actually called that uh establishment. It's called Steve's Barberh Shop and the picture that they have is of cutting men's hair and I asked if they cut women's hair. I didn't get into the details. I was not actually
aware of all the different possibilities. >> Yes. >> Uh and they said they did cut women's hair, but that's about as far as I know. But you make a very good point. >> Yes. >> Well, I guess I'll ask the question to u
Miss is it Miss Brson? Does is she aware what the services like how her services are different than that of the establishment that's down the down the road? wax. >> Okay. Uh, basically none of the services
that she said I can partake in because I have no hair. But basically what she's saying is that but in in in all terms basically what she's saying just you know verbatim so you know she's saying she handles men
women nails she does a conglomerate of what you would consider a true spa. I am also familiar with Steves and I also know with my relationship with him that he predominantly handles men. Reason being is because he offered to do my beard. So I you know I I I think that
that does play a role. Uh I have another question as well if I can through through you chair for the staff. >> Yes. >> When CeCe I'm I'm going to let her finish her statement first and then I have one more question as well. >> Yeah. She
>> Yeah. She's stating that she has very good service and that her reviews online will tell the story of of the the services that she's providing. And I think there's some and and it's something that I could speak about is when was that notice of violation
written and asking a property owner to come into compliance when there's no quorum and you're only given 180 days based on on on the nonconformity uh portion that she was that Mrs. Bu was
stating. you know what what what weight and I'm just asking the board and maybe the attorney what weight would that hold in terms of them coming into compliance knowing that without a quorum and no meeting that may affect a client or a
property uh a business owner from coming into compliance. >> I can answer that. >> Can I respond? So to answer your question, the citation was issued on June 26, 2025. And looking at the date of the application, that was
July 3rd, 2025. So I'm not sure why there's this idea that there was no quorum because I'm pretty sure we have had a board of adjustment meeting since that time >> and it and it wasn't a two-year period.
I think that was the allegation that there was no quorum for 2 years. >> No, no, no. Definitely. And then I also want to point out that whether the meeting happened after the 180 days because that application came in within and because we had conversations with
the applicant within that 180 days, we wouldn't just if there for some reason we didn't have a meeting after and that 180 days expired, we wouldn't have just denied it and made and um >> I suggest progressing you you're doing better on the other line of discussion.
>> Correct. Agreed. >> Okay. Yeah, it was just a question on my end because of of it. So, >> but you you know I just wanted to sorry again I didn't get a full answer. I just wanted to see what the about the the
establishment that's down the street. What's the difference? Like what do they offer? Are they offering the same services that you're offering? Steve's Barberhop is not is what she's stating. >> And and can I ask a question? Uh your
client base, what what is your client base? Is it mix men and women? mostly women or she has predominantly female but she does have male and she does have the other services that would
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. The public hearing is now closed. Yes. Do we have anything to discuss? >> Yes. How can we best
I mean she's been there she said for a total of two years. She has built a clientele. We are trying to attract different businesses. I understand that she's probably um very close to another beauty salon.
I'm trying to look at that salon as she's talking, but I cannot seem to see because I really like to know, you know, what type of service that that salon has offered because I'm pretty sure that she
spent a lot of money getting this business established. >> Well, you you've heard testimony that the other business is primarily >> serving men and she's got a mixed clientele. You you have the authority to grant the
variance based upon the evidence that's been presented. >> Go ahead. >> Can you grant the variance with restriction? For example, if we said sure you can have your salon, but you
can't service men since the other one. >> Sorry. Is it possible to grant a variance with some kind of requirement or restriction? For example, part part of the issue is we don't want too many
of the same kind of business. And so if we say we want hair, we don't want any hair salon. I don't like that idea. But say hers is is only for women or only women and children while the other is only for men. Then is that possible?
>> Well, I'm not sure logically and with all due respect, you're not putting that restriction on the other establishment that they will only serve men. >> So, it would be a true compet the true competition would be without restriction. And if she has an existing
clientele, then why disrupt a successful business? >> Dr. Medina have discussion. >> No, I got it. >> Chief, >> so all all discussions should try and be on the record. >> I'm sorry. >> No, no, no. He was trying to show me.
>> I just showing the circumference of the in front of Will Marie. >> Yeah, because I I I I think we're going to go back and visit the land use ordinances. I think this is one that we could really look to change >> in the future. And then we want to tighten up the smoke shops and all that other stuff. So, I think
>> I'm I'm in favor of granting the variance. That's that's you know, I mean, you >> like to make a motion. >> The density is there, the people are moving in. >> Okay. I would like to make a motion to grant the >> to grant the variance. >> You have a second motion. Any second?
>> I'm sorry. You're making a motion. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. >> All right. We're gonna go ahead. >> Ask if there's further discussion. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. Is there further discussion before we take a vote? >> Okay. >> I'm good. >> I second.
>> Okay. >> I got new hearing aids. I'm not >> board. Sorry. Chairman Flint. >> Yes. Board member Bernardet Pierre. >> Yes.
>> Board member Dana Magua Finolan. >> Yes. >> Board member Kenny each. >> Yes. >> And board member Hector Medina. >> Yes. >> Congratulations. Keep up the good work.
>> Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. Keep the process. >> Thank you for keeping that canal clean, Chief. I appreciate that. >> Yeah. >> You know, uh, you you brought up the fact that she got that email earlier. >> Yeah. I'm going to address that now. >> I I I think we we should be looking into that. That looks somebody
>> It may be coming from It may be coming directly to them. I don't want to send any emails once this is done. I'll check with it here just to check for the benefit of the residents, number one. And number two, I'll check because it may just be fraud on on our end of on
her end of the deal because the email that it's coming from I I mean this is extra information, but the email that it's coming from looks very suspicious. It's typically what you would find in fishing emails when they're trying to get information. So, I'm not going to go send that email out to absolutely
anybody and ruin somebody's day. So, I'm going to look further into that. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. I appreciate >> Good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> And follow through on everything you need to follow through on. Okay. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you.
>> In a way, I I feel bad for her. You know, she invested the money, didn't know, you know. >> Moving on. >> All right. Item number two, B-1625, a variance to legalize the existing paving to encroach into the rear yard.
rear yard at 1970 Northeast 124th Street. A variance to article 5, Division 1, section 5-113 of chapter 29 of the city of North Miami code of ordinances land development regulations to legalize the
impermeable materials to be located 0 feet away from the property line where five feet is required at the property located at 1970 Northeast 124th Street in the R1 zoning district. said variance is to be reviewed under the criteria set
forth in article 3 division 6 section 3-0 3-606 of the LDRs >> the first one >> so the request before you is to legalize some paving that was done um on the
property located at 1970 Northeast 124th Street and the the work was done without permits So, the property is located in the R1 zoning district. It's a single family neighborhood and to the rear is um a body of water.
So, kind of what happened was the applicant had an had applied for an initial permit. However, there was extra work that was done on the property that wasn't originally shown on the plans itself. So, this is the original permit that was approved and issued by the
building department. And then this is the extra paving that was um that was done on the property. So, although it's two small areas compared to the rest of the backyard, it it does still encroach into the into the
um paving setback. which which of the actual property itself? No, I don't. So after an analysis of of the of this variant, staff found that the applicant met one out of the six criterias. So the
first one being, do special 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. Um number two, the unusual circumstances or conditions
necessitating the variance requests are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. staff also says no. Number three, that the requested variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the subject regulations particularly as it affects the stability and appearance of the city. Staff says
no. The the pavement requirements is consistent with all property development in the city. This 5-ft standard from the side and rear yards replies to any development within any zoning district within any area of the city. that five
um that 5 foot step that 5 foot step back from the side and rear is consistent throughout. Number four, the literal interpretation of the provisions of these LDRs would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. Staff says no.
Had the work had been accurately depict depicted on the plans back in 2022, it would have been denied and the applicant would have been required to come into compliance with that five foot setback requirement. Number five. Oh, and the reason that this provision is is in place is to
ensure there is proper drainage on the properties and to try and prevent flooding as much as possible. Criteria number five, the variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land structure or building. Staff says no. Um the existing structures in
the rear yard can continue to be used for their intended purposes without this variance. And lastly, number six, the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these LDRs and such variants will not be injurous to the area involved. Staff says yes, while the
variance doesn't fully comply um with the paving standards of the code, um staff doesn't believe that this would be injurous to the surrounding um houses in the area. So, as previously stated, um if you do not meet four out of six criteria, staff
cannot recommend approval. In this case, um they only meet one out of the six. So, staff is recommending denial. Staff doesn't believe that the board of adjustment should be used as a way to just do work in at your house without permits and then once you get caught,
once you get your code violations, you just come in front of the board and seek a variance. So staff is recommending denial. However, should you um wish to approve them, we do ask that the applicant receives an after the fact um building permit from the office of building services just to make sure you
know everything's okay that you know gets reviewed by engineering and all the other trades that it needs to um get reviewed by. So the applicant is here online. Excuse me. Um >> before we go to the applicant, are there any board disclosures on this
application? Thank you. >> There he is, >> sir. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Can you hear me? >> I can. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? >> Yes. Uh Perry Loway. Um, uh, the address
is 1917 Northeast 124th Street, North Miami, Florida 33181. >> Thank you. Okay. You can go ahead and state your case.
>> Yeah. So, the property has had um three sort of works done out in in the backyard. Um, all been permitted. So there was a pool renovation, there was a a a shed that was rebuilt, and then
there was um a concrete seaw wall um well the seaw wall was was redone and so was a dock. Uh we then had to put or basically sort of put put all those together
um so that you know it was it was you were able to sort of get between each of the areas. So, we had to get the tile sets and the and the tile area to the shed done. Uh, we applied for a permit
originally for this, but it got caught up in the technology sort of issues or the hack that sort of happened back in 23 or whenever it was. And then when we got the permit redone, we were then
advised that we needed to go through the variation. Um, and then there was a communication issue probably possibly on my side, but we ended up having to, you know, finally get the variation done in
September this year. Um, and so if you you can see the plan which is on page 31, uh, which was shown, and then there's some photos on page 32 effectively just showing where the tile sort of goes in
between the other pieces of work. Um, that that that was that that was the story there. So, uh then the the next door neighbor um originally signed a um agreement that it
was okay uh on the original permit and but I'll see if I've had to go through the adjustment process. >> We're just looking at some pictures right now. Okay. >> Yep. It's not.
>> So, he's touching everything. >> Did you see him? >> Yeah. The the the hard the hard one about this job was we had to do the pool for the renovation and then the dock was done, you know, separately. And so we didn't know exactly how it was going to
be pieced together. So this is this is the compartment. >> I don't quite understand what this is all from that level down to that level. >> So this is what we're this is what's in and not in compliance. Yes. Okay. And this is not what's in compliance.
>> That's also not compliance. >> So that these two these two areas here are not in compliance. >> Okay. I also put it up on the PowerPoint in case you want to pull it up, Dunia. >> So, the areas outlined outlined in
yellow and red. >> It says like you need you need the five foot here and you need five foot over there and that goes by the neighbor's property. >> I got you. All right. Okay. Okay, sir. Thank Thank you. Uh, does the board have any uh comments?
>> Let me see if I got this right. You have to be uh on one side of the property is a chainlink fence. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Correct. >> And on the other side is is a solid wall, a block wall. Am I
>> No. Oh, on the on the boundary. Uh, yes, there's a concrete block wall. is >> there's a that that that block wall now that that is parallel with the where the uh what would you call that the celinary structure the
>> shed >> that that's where the block wall is sir is the block wall behind the shed >> behind the c there's a there's a chain there's a chain link fence down yeah behind the
shed And there's a concrete block wall on the opposite boundary that goes down beside the pool. >> There seems to be a a palm tree with some vegetation. Is that on your property?
Uh yeah, looking at the photos, there's a there is well there is a couple there's quite a few palm trees on the back of the property, but there is also a palm tree on the neighbor's side that sort of hangs over the chain fence of it. Yeah.
>> Oh, no. I mean on the side where the pool is. Uh yes, there are two palms that are uh one situation situated beside the area of the tile steps.
Um there's there's one there. >> So you have some landscaped area on that side of the property near the pool. >> Yeah, correct. Yeah, just in that corner there, there's um basically Yeah, it's a
landscape area for and effectively it it provides all the water drainage and everything, you know, on that side of the property. >> Uh yes, sir. Go ahead. Um >> um I do have a question. Okay. So, the
tiled area that's near the shed. So, the shed does it need a five foot um setback? >> So, in my research, it was um the shed did receive an after the fact um variance from the from the board of adjustment.
>> Oh, >> yeah. We we we had that variance approved because effectively there was a shed there. So, we we rebuilt the shed. We got the variance done for that shed. And then I well we couldn't do the tiling because we haven't had the
concrete seaw wall and the dock done. Once we got that done then we could put the tiling down you know between there and the shed. And so um I mean ideally it would have been good to do the variance of the shed and the tiling on
the same variance but we didn't have the plan back then because we didn't have the plan for the dog. >> Okay. Right. Remember Pierre, would you like to >> Is that wall be the shed? Is it
overlapping or is it kind of like >> behind the fence? Behind the shed is a chain like a chain wall. >> Yeah. So, okay. >> Which wall are you referring to? >> Um, by the shed, >> but he has clarifying. Yeah. behind it.
There's a >> between the two. >> It's a chain fence. Yeah. That goes that runs pretty much down the whole property line. >> Okay. >> And it's not overlapping to the other. No. >> In the other property property. >> Okay.
>> Probably not. >> No. No. The chain link fence is located on the property. >> Okay. >> On the on the property line. >> On the property line. >> So, there is a set back, but it's just not five feet. Is that >> for for that portion? Yes.
>> Okay. >> Goes the two portions, one by the shed and then the tile steps. So the portion outlined >> on the screen. >> Okay. >> Dr. Medina, >> I have a question for the staff. So
there postings in the house that he's seeking a variance. They put like the white thing that uh in the property. >> Yes. Those those two paved area those so those >> steps. >> No. No. >> Oh. >> So, so the neighbors are aware that he's
seeking a variance. >> Yes. So, there was a sign put on the property and then there was um notices mailed out to all property owners within a 500 foot radius. >> So, did you receive anybody opposed? >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. >> So, no one is really against his
neighbor is not complaining and they're not going. So they have so if they if they are they haven't reached out to staff doesn't have >> it's not a visual obstruction so it's it's a horizontal issue. >> Okay. >> But flooding it >> it's it's really a flooding issue.
>> Yes ma'am. >> Okay. May May ask one question please on this uh >> ask as many >> I thought I read someplace uh the applicant I thought I read that this was there concrete originally there and then you put these marble uh pavers on top of
it. >> Hello. >> So the plans in 2022 it was green area. >> That was a green area. So the Okay. Okay. I thought I read some place it was >> I thought it was concrete and then they
put marble. >> Yeah, there was a concrete path uh the the large path that comes up the middle of it and sort of expands out uh that was originally a concrete path. We
tiled on top of that and and effectively tiled around the pool which was all originally concrete as well which was on a separate perman. Um but yeah um you're correct. Um on the
shed side that was originally uh grass. >> So let me clarify. So there was paving in the rear yard that has all existed prior. So those are all non-conforming. Okay. That's not that's not what this variance is about tonight. This variance
is about those two areas. So, the tile steps as well as the paved area that is kind of around the shed. So, per this per um the slideshow, those two areas within the yellow and the red, that's what we're varying here tonight. >> What would they have to do to bring that
in compliance? >> Um they would either have to move it 5t away from the property line or they would or would have to >> or they would have to do what? or it would have to just basically to come into compliance it would have to be five feet away.
>> So it looks like the side setback for the stepped area is satisfied because >> but not the rear wall. >> Sorry, >> but not the rear setback. >> Right. That's a rear setback issue where the steps are >> and then for the the cloud area by the
shed is the rear and the side. >> Rear and side where >> the property line next to the Seaw wall. The seaw wall is 3.2 feet wide.
Says 3.2 ft concrete >> seaw wall. >> Yeah, it is. It is. And there's a dock that goes out from there as well. >> Um I think it's on that survey plan which is I think on page 31.
>> Okay. Um >> it looks like >> so so >> yeah and and the the actual property line is in the water >> right >> of the canal and so if you work back from that property line in the water um
it's yeah less than less than 5T or 7 ft or whatever it is for the rear property >> but it's 4 it's 4.2T if the concrete seaw wall is 3.2 too. And there's another foot to the property line. It's 4.2 ft to the rear setback instead of
5T. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Any more discussion? >> And the the idea behind this was percolation. >> Yes, sir. >> And and you're on the canal, so I I
don't get it. I mean, the and you haven't had a problem there in 50 years, 60 years. I mean, I I understand the the theory behind it, but if it's on the canal, it's going to go into the the excessive water would go into the canal anyway. I mean, you got to
>> I guess that's that's the question. Is there an issue with the flooding here? >> To our knowledge, no. However, I do want to just, you know, make you guys aware that if you do move forward with this, we're setting a precedent that people
could do unpermitted work and then once they get caught, they could now just come in, apply for a board of adjustment variance and then they could just bypass the permitting process altogether. >> I I I that part I understand we understand that. >> I got that. I think the issue lies for
me is that this the shed already has a variance >> and then so um and this tiled area lines up with that shed on for so that's the side piece and then I guess I have the
question of the tiled portion that's in the middle >> it runs all the way up to the seaw wall and that seems to be in compliance >> because that's non-conforming. That's existed on the property since before the
2000s. >> So that should >> Okay. So if that's non-conforming and that goes to the seaw wall, then the the new portion that's running right to the seaw wall, >> I don't I just don't see any problem with it. I guess that's I see what
you're saying and I and I >> that I understand, >> right? And I think maybe we have to maybe put something in place where there's more consequence, maybe a fine or something when you do a permit after the fact. Maybe that's where we need to
make the changes so that there is some kind of consequence, you know, >> or a real legitimate consequence when you hit someone's pockets that we're if you come after the fact, it's going to
cost you so much more. Maybe they won't do that anymore. But I just kind of feel like again every it logistically or the pictures that are are seen, it just doesn't seem like there's a problem with providing the variance.
>> And staff, you you Sav you offered up a stipulation uh to to uh this uh if we did go ahead and and approve this. you what what was that that you were >> they would have to now um go for an after the fact um permit through the
building department. >> Okay. And we could we could uh that put that in >> required condition double fee. >> Do they have to pay their welcome? >> There there is an extra fee. However, I'm I don't want to say an amount because I'm not 100% sure. So I don't
want to put that on the record. >> Definitely. Uh I I look at item number six and the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the OVRs and such variants will not be injur injuries uh to the
area involved. I know what you're saying and I agree with you 100% >> but on the other hand I I do agree with you and and these are residents. They're paying taxes. They made a mistake maybe deliberately, maybe they didn't. I I do
agree. It's an innocuous. >> Do Do we have a >> any more discussion? >> I made a motion to grant the variance. >> I'll second that. >> Roll call.
>> All right. Chairman Flint. >> Yes. I'm sorry. Sorry. >> Nods don't count. >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I need to hear. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, board member Pierre.
>> Yes. >> Board member MLA Finolan. >> Yes. >> Board member each. >> Yes. >> And board member Medina. >> Yes. The motion passes to grant the variance
>> wi with that stipulation >> unanimously with the stipulation that they >> then go to the building department to get an after the fact permit. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Sir, are you still there?
>> Yes, I'm still here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >> May I ask you a question, sir? Do you have an Australia? Hey, uh originally New Zealand, but I spent 20 years in Australia and I've been here 12 years. So, and I just got
my citizenship uh approved uh last week. So, >> congratulations. >> Yes. >> Thank you, mate. >> Thank you. And >> yeah, >> all right. Uh let's move on. We >> do we have any old business?
>> No, sir. >> Okay. Any new business? >> Um, dress would like to welcome Mrs. Bernardet Pierre and Mrs. Dana Magalor Fininnelo to our board. >> Yes. I second that. I wanted to welcome both of you. Thank you.
>> I I want you to know you do one heck of a job. You really do. You do a lot of research and you present the facts as they are >> and and you really do. You do a great job. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you, board member E. I appreciate it.
>> Okay. All right. Well, motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> All those in favor? >> That's