145 NE 94 St (12)°FfC 17221PC1373
RE
9 6R 23:65 45 1996 JUN 03 09040
HISTORICAL LANDMARK COVENANT
IN CONSIDERATION of the designation of the real property hereinafter
described as an historical landmark by MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, a
Florida municipal corporation, the undersigned, being all the owners of the said real
property, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, do hereby
jointly and severally covenant with MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, its successors and
assigns, that no structure presently situated on the following described real property shall
be demolished, moved, or changed in the exterior appearance by addition, reconstruction,
alteration or maintenance, nor shall any trees situated on said real property be destroyed or
moved, until an application for a certificate of appropriateness has been submitted to the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD of MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE and has
been approved by that Board, or the Village Council on appeal. Furthermore, it is
understood that an historical landmark brass plaque shall be attached to the front facade of
the structure, which shall always remain the property of MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE,
and shall not be removed from said property unless this Covenant is terminated as
provided for below, in which case said plaque shall be returned to MIAMI SHORES
VILLAGE. Said property is legally described as follows:
LOTS 20 & 21 OF BLOCK 21, MIAMI SHORES SECTION NO.
1, AMENDED, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 70, OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A/K/A 145 N.E.
94TH STREET, MIAMI SHORES, FLORIDA.
THIS COVENANT shall run with the land and shall terminate only upon the
written consent of MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, or its successors and assigns, and the
HISTORICAL LANDMARK COVENANT
Page 1 of 2
undersigned do expressly consent to the filing of this document in the Public Records in
and for Dade County, Florida.
THIS COVENANT shall be referenced by Official Record Book and Page in all
future conveyances of said property, it being the intent to avoid the extinguishment of this
covenant by operation of law under the Florida Marketable Record Titles to Real Estate
Property Act, Chapter 712, F.S. (1993).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have set our hands and seals on the 24 i 1 A day of
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of the following
witnesses:
WITNESS:
[print name] A�njv-u7
WITNESS:
, 1996.
[print name] AU4 0 !e4 4Lv,'t4E2.
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF DADE )
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me this .0 day
of ff/,e /L. , 1996 b ANDY MACERA [owner] and MYRLENE MACERA
[owner], who are ersona y known to me or who have produced
as identification.
Vc I T22 I PC 1374
REC.
OWNER:
[print name]
OWNER:
[print name]
ss:
Notary Public, State of Florida, at Large
Name:
497.2b LNnA L BEVIS
Serial Number: J% A? . . MY COMMISSION i CC 280279
• � t PutS:Apfl! 28 1997
.. c 1:
tr.
My Commission Expi Bonded Tlinititaultoc U,n,,,
HISTORICAL LANDMARK COVENANT
Page 2 of 2
QFf 17221111375
RAC.
RESOLUTION NO. 947 -96
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD TO DESIGNATE THE
PROPERTY AT 145 N.E. 94TH STREET A MIAMI
SHORES HISTORIC LANDMARK AND INSTRUCTING THE
VILLAGE CLERK TO RECORD THE HISTORICAL
LANDMARK COVENANT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY.
WHEREAS, on April 24, 1996, the Historic Preservation Board,
after considering the criteria for designation of historic
landmarks found in section 11 1/2 -3 of the Miami Shores Village
Code, passed a motion,, under section 11 1/2- 5(b)(4), to recommend
to the Village Council that the property at 145 N.E. 94th Street
be designated as an historic landmark; and
WHEREAS, the current owners of the property, Andy & Myrlene
Macera, initiated the, nomination, and have consented thereto, by
the execution of an Historical Landmark Covenant to run with the
land; and
WHEREAS, the structure on the subject property was
constructed in 1926,; for Daniel V. Godard, President of the
construction firm of Godard & Sydow, Inc., the firm responsible
for constructing many of the homes in Miami Shores during this
time period; and
WHEREAS, the architect of the structure was Marion Manley,
the first registered woman architect in Dade County; and
WHEREAS, the subject structure is a subdued example of a
two -story Mediterranean Revival Style residence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF MIAMI
SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA:
' Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference
thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. Th'e Miami Shores Village Council hereby
accepts the recommendation of the Historic Preservation. Board and
approves the designation of the property at 145 N.E. 94th Street
as an historic landmark of Miami Shores Village.
Section 2. The Village Clerk is hereby instructed to
record the Historical Landmark Covenant, voluntarily executed and
submitted to the Historic Preservation Board by the owners of the
subject property, Andy & Myrl ene Macera , in the public records of
Metropolitan Dade County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21 o ;ay of , 1996.
ATTEST:
VILLAGE CLERK
R;.C.
'-: I7 Pc 1 376
-2-
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK
OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
RECORD VERIFIED
HARVEY RUVIN
CLERK CIRCUIT COURT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�Ir
>4h
BARBARA'FUGAZZI VILLAGE ATTORNEY
MARK ULMER
a ,
•;' l q
n t!y
� r
+ Qa QOeeq o .,
0
•
+ m
/ • ♦ ••4k-
°0
d E
.. -
Sharon K. Grosshart
Frederick L Newman
May 19, 1999
Richard Sarafan, Miami Shores Village Attorney
V T r en Bittner, Chair, Miami Shores Historical Preservation Board
Miami Shores Village Hall
10050 NE 2nd Avenue
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Re: Conflict of Interest, and
Request to Withdraw the Designation of Our House as a
Miami Shores Historical House
Dear Mr. Sarafan and Warren:
145 NE 94th Street, Miami Shores, FL 33138
Home: (305) 757-1073 [voice], 757 -0390 [Fax]
FIli 919 -5802 [voice], 919 -5848 [Fax]
Center for Family Studies:
243 -4592 [voice] 243 -5577 [Fax]
Email: newmanfalu.edu
We are saddened to be writing this letter, but recent circumstances have required that we
do so. We moved into our home last summer because it is one we would enjoy living in for
several decades. Although we were pleased that the house was designated as historical by the
Miami Shores Preservation Board, it was not a requirement on our part.
We think that the record will show that we have made every attempt to comply with the
desires of the Historical Preservation Board (hereto referred to as the Board). However, two sets
of events have precipitated this request: 1) a member of the board is in conflict of interest when
discussing and voting on our proposals presented to the Board, and 2) the Board's actions and
recommendations have potential negative impact on the safety, security, and structural soundness
of our house, given current standards and codes.
Regarding conflict of interest: Based upon.the recommendation of Mr. Bittner last
Summer (1998) we contacted Inez Hegedus - Garcia, who Warren said was an architect, a member
of the Historical Preservation Board, and someone whom we might consider as an architect for
the remodeling of our back house. He also recommended that we should shop around for other
architects. We did meet with her on several occasions, but did not hire Ms. Hegedus- Garcia for
several reasons. First and foremost, at that time, Ms. Hegedus - Garcia was not a licensed
architect. She said that she could provide the renderings for our appeal to the Historical
Preservation Board such that (as she said) we would be assured the proposal would be approved.
However, she added, she could not provide the drawings of the technical plans for submission to
Village Zoning and Building Board.
Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney
Warren Bittner, Chair Miami Shores
Historical Preservation Board
Page 2, May 19, 1999
We told Ms. Hegedus - Garcia at that time, we would continue to interview architects
because we were interested in someone who could follow through with the whole job. We
wondered why Ms. Hegedus- Garcia could not provide the technical plans required by the Village
Building and Zoning. We later found out that this was probably because she was not licensed as
an architect at that time. We hired another architect, Salow Architects, and when we did appear
before the Historical Preservation Board with that proposal, Ms. Hegedus - Garcia raised strong
objections to the proposal and voted against its acceptance. It was with considerable relief that
the majority of the Board approved the proposal over Ms. Hegedus - Garcia's objection.
When we took that proposal to Building and Zoning, Bob Blum was instructed by the
Village Attorney to recuse himself from any discussion or to vote on the proposal because we
had decided not to continue to work with Bob Blum's construction firm on the proposed
renovation. The Village Attorney indicated to not do so would put Bob in a conflict of interest.
Bob complied. Looking back on that decision, we now realize that according to the Village
Attorney, if Ms. Hegedus- Garcia participated in any deliberations on our proposals, she may also
be a conflict of interest. We now are asking whether this is a case of conflict of interest?
In a recent conversation with Ms. Hegedus - Garcia prior to the Miami Shores Preservation
Board's visit to historical homes, Fred Newman asked Ms. Hegedus - Garcia about the fact that
wooden windows and doors were not up to Miami Dade code. She told Fred that if he wanted to
do something that would meet the demands of preserving the historical character of the house,
we should avoid going after a village permit and just do it. She further stated that "... they are
just after your money."
At the meeting of Historical Preservation Board on May 17 we did seek to have two
renovations made. Both met with strong objection by MS. Hegedus - Garcia, with all but one of
the Board backing her on one objection and all backing her on the other. After investigating
these objections, we have decided that both decisions are inappropriate. Moreover, to have
someone with a conflict of interest leading the discussion on why the proposal was inappropriate
is highly questionable. Below is our understanding of the issues raised on each proposal.
Front Door — Here the objection to our proposal was led by Ms. Hegedus - Garcia. Her
motion, passed by the full Board, approved our putting in a wooden, cypress door, as shown in
the original architectural plans, but only if we remove the existing ornamental iron screen door.
This door provides additional security from both wind storms, as well as from home invasion
when we have the door opened, and the screen locked, for additional ventilation. Yes, we do
have hurricane shutters, but we feel that additional protection of the existing ornamental iron
door is important. We cannot understand why we must remove an existing structure, particularly
since the ornamental iron screen door provides a level of security which we feel is needed.
Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney
Warren Bittner, Chair Miami Shores
Historical Preservation Board
Page 3, May 19, 1999
We are quite willing to go before the Building and Zoning Board with this proposal to
argue that although a wooden door does not meet hurricane code standards, with the Ornamental
Iron Screen and the Hurricane Shutters, a door that conforms to the original drawing submitted
by the house's architect in 1926 would be safe during a major hurricane. It is also note -worthy
that we have since observed several houses designated as historical homes in Miami Shores that
have such ornamental doors. Why are we picked out in this case? Why was Ms. Hegedus -
Garcia so adamant in her objection?
When we objected to the motion offered by Ms. Hegedus - Garcia, we were told that we
had a choice of either getting the wooden door and taking off the ornamental iron screen door or
leaving the current, non - historically relevant door as it is. We felt coerced by the wording of the
argument offered here. It is as if they are saying, "If you want to make your house attractive and
historically correct, you must sacrifice safety and security." Different members of the Board
repeatedly said, "We are only trying to help you." We do not understand how making the entry
less resistant to hurricanes and less secure is "helping us."
Circular Parking Area — Once again Ms. Hegedus- Garcia led the objections, stating that
there were no circular parking areas in the 1920's. Although there was some disagreement by one
Board member on this issue, other members of the Board backed Inez on this. We have not
found evidence that the assertion of "no circular drives in the 1920's" is true. In fact, a number of
historically designated homes have circular drives to the front door. We do feel that the tone of
arguments seemed to indicate that once again Ms. Hegedus- Garcia was playing a game of getting
back at us. The proposed parking area does conform to the design of others on the street, and we
do not agree with the exact style and designs offered by Ms Hegedus - Garcia and another Board
member. We are willing to follow the Board's suggestion of a rectangular parking area;
however, we are very much bothered by the style of argument that was led by Ms. Hegediis-
Garcia. Her style certainly appeared to show the conflict of interest she has exhibited before.
Another concern was raised at the meeting of May 17 when in a discussion about the
power of the Board, Ms. Hegedus- Garcia said that if one of our awning windows in the house did
need replacement, we would be required to replace it with a wooden casement window. That
alarmed us since the availability of such a window meeting Miami -Dade County code is
questionable. We feel strongly that we would not want to be forced to violate code to meet the
demands of the Historical Preservation Board. If it is a choice between being safe, secure, and
structurally sound on the one hand, and being historically correct on the other, we will pick being
safe, secure, and structurally sound. Moreover, we find that dealing with a Board where one of
its members has been so unpleasant, is not worth the privilege of having our house officially
designated as historic.
Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney
Warren Bittner, Chair Miami Shores
Historical Preservation Board
Pave 4. May 19, 1999
Because of these reasons, and because we plan to stay in this house for many years to
come and have no need to realize the financial benefit of being designated a historical house, we
now officially request that the official historical designation be withdrawn. Please let us know
-.vhat we need to do to have our house withdrawn from the list of historically designated homes.
N ioreover, because of the conflict of interest of one of the Board members, we request that the
two decisions made at the Board's meeting of May 17, 1999 be ruled as invalid.
Ironically, we do not need a formal designation to maintain the house's historical
relevance. We do intend to maintain the house in the highest and safest standards, and to
maintain its historical character whenever it is safe and structurally sound to do so. We do not
need the Historical Board's official permission to assure this and, given its record thus far, do not
feel that we can maintain these standards if we remain a formally designated historical house.
Again, we are saddened that circumstances have lead to this request.
Sincerely,
Frederick L Newman and Sharon K Grosshart
cc: Bob Blum and Art Salow