139 NE 96 Stc
4
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
Date S/ i Job Address /.6/' A/C 2l # ST Tax Folio
Legal Description Historically Designated: Yes No
Owner/Lessee / Tenant C /44 AA �poC j ,6gAM S ( 0^/71 Master Permit # 0813ff
Owner's Address / 3 ff A/ S.7 5 r
e.3 w",/ -
•
e
plc
Signature of owner and/or Condo President Date
Notary as to Owner and/or Condo President Date
My Commission Expires:
Address
Phone 47 S 7 5/
Qualifier ,, hone
State # Municipal # Competency # Ins. Co.
Architect/Engineer Address
Bonding Company Address
Mortgagor Address
Permit Type (circle one): BUILDING ELECTRICAL PLUMBING MECHANICAL ROOFING PAVING ENCE } SIGN
w Ao4Z - 4J
WORK DESCRIPTION C-o/A/57/.)C A/ P &4--C. Jr''d y4 ®-J
,r e- - ,vA AA . VV ,9"'
Square Ft. Estimated Cost (value) ® D ,
WARNING TO OWNER: YOU MUST RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT AND YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO MAY
RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY (IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING,
CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT.)
Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do work and installation as indicated above, and on the attached addendum (if applicable). I
certify that all work will be performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. I understand that separate
permits are required for ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, SIGNS, POOLS, ROOFING and MECHANICAL WORK.
OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT: I certify that all the foregoing information is accurate and that all work will be done in compliance with all applicable
laws regulating construction and zoning. Furthermore, I authorize the above -named contractor to do the work stated.
-
Signature of Contractor dr Owner- Builder
f e c) ;
Date
Notary as to Contractor or Owner - Builder Date
My Commission Expires:
FEES: PERMIT L l'a RADON C.C.F. NOTARY - BOND
TOTAL DUE
h
APPROVED:
Zoning Building I J P Electrical
Mechanical Plumbing Engineering
•
•
• Z1 .
. •
•• •
•
0
41 ; x 'Wood Pos t
2'24 Tccd R i .
Tood Pickets
•
•
for these re`_z.`. ...
gh 4. Lev.
1.74 n
liess
2915 ?_nces •
•
= '—�;s O.C.
5 -0u Q.C.
(a) :e_rces not e:ceed{ng feRt in aei h
• shrill; be constructed =.o meet the following;
minimum requirements: from nominal 4 inch by 4
inch by d flea 0 inch long posts spaced 4 feet
0. an centers, haTi g a fiber stress or
1200p. s . i.' in bending, and sr .11 be embedded 2.
feet 0 inches into a�conc= ete fcoing; 1 'foot 0
• itches in dismeter.m d 3 _ee:. 0 inches deep ..
Other ccmpensr. ts-'she? 1 be des z7ne to comply,
with the p_orisicr_s of t _s .Chapter and C2:_;r..o- -
23. •
• (h) : erces not e nnee.r i 5 f v rend 4 '.
feet in nelzht t' e ' . shall - t
2.r oT �.^. e'•.' { .. tea'. = D � r' : 2 = i 5 . 1 )" fl ee'211' 1 a.
;a 5 fe: : �o 1.71e:" 11". � :=e: a i^csle• c:, cen:.rn
•
k 6 4 .
, x' 12515.1 Tocd fences so i' V cr. V e on Z property
<• },,
�. 'fUr `� .♦ha le by zoning = erulstic:zs they cannot 'be used
as a wa.:1 of = bu ld 4, sisall be constructed .
.to meet the following minimum specifications.
4
This property described as
The Est of Lot 20 and All of
Lot 21, Block 19
AN AMENDED PLAT OF MIAMI SWIMS
SECTION NO. 1,
according to the Plat
thereof, as recorded in
Plat Hook In, Page 70
of th?. Public Records of
Dade County, Florida.
(
eel
PROPFIUY
• 1
/ •
-/
0
\) I to
-;31
7 :/--e7rZ 4 -
',/ 7C ‘ely
& fr. .•
/;•
Unless it hems be signature and
the origiend raised seal of Florida
licensed sinveynt and snapper this
(11 iii. sketch. plat or map is rot
nth lllll ational purposes only and is
not valid
31
•
(5
Ze^, • ■
/(•7. •
•v '5//e/)e
. • .
suRviy
1 hereby certify that the Hovey repte•
seined hereon meets the minimum
technical standards set forth by the Board
of land Surveyors In chapter 61G17.6
Florida Adonneuritive Code pursuant to
Section 172027,f1i. itatiotes. T t/ are no
enticsacfs Kit, overlaps 'easements
arrev g on the Pia other than as
strovi to.
•
/();• 2
/ • ere---17;•7
°F Richard and•Bransacom,
1
)
Ben,
4_1___ ___:_4:. _____ >:_'___ ______•-7-'.___._.. _ _._
.----
— 07-5 •
/.'en,N • .„
•
7.
k ' 1
• ‘3 3
l c.
/9 i 'g'. / 77 f3.1 ,
• --,
17 7
2 4• e•..." • .... ••••••• •
---•
w
" • ;;;; ( -7 -
FLOOD ZONE: X
FLOOD INFORMATION:
Community No.: 120652
Panel No.: 93
Suffin: j
Date of P.I.R.M. 3.2-94
Rase Elevation Not
Available
Certified To: Rapid Title
Services Company, Attorneys'
Title Insurance Fund, Inc.,
Nicholls, Richard and
Rome Financing Center, inc
its successors and/or
assigns and Bransacom, Ben.
0
z
ta.
6
Note: Underground encroach-
ments and utilities, if any,
not located. Fence ownership
by visual means only, legal
ownership not determined.
cze
b
V
- ../
70/el 797////
f 7'4"'/
• ; 4 /-4/ -/-//,/ ,></ •
- /2 z
••
139 N.B. 96th Street,
SCALE ,
/-
DRWC.NO
45725
fl. Reg land eyor No
ive
Z7
DATE
Mimt _t-Ibores Florida.
NES an GARcIA, INC.
.D. 20913
ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - LAND PLANNERS
Rene Aiguesvives - 14327
Office address: 359 Alcatar Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Mailing address: P.O. Box 561131, Miami, Florida 33156
(305)666.7909 (954) 52341663 •
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA OF
Name of Owner /Applicant
Present Zoning R - 20
Council Action Required
Planning Board Action
Council Action
iami jhores
F L OR ID A
Ben Branscom
November 14, 1996
wk: 677 -5166
Name of Architect/Contractor Phone No.
Address of Property, and/or Legal Description 139 N.E. 96 Street
Nature of Request Appeal of Building Official's decision regarding variance
approved October 24, 1996 (see attached minutes).
Area of Present Building
Area of Proposed Addition
Total Area
Parking Spaces Provided
Parking Spaces Required with Addition
Setbacks as per Code : Front Side Rear
Setbacks Provided : Front Side Rear
Variances/( Section 518(a)(1)
Director of Building and Zoning
ITEM NO. 5
Phone No. 751 - 7517
NOV. -0 — 96(THI;I 09:54 HIES INTERESTS MIA
Hines
November 4, 1996
Miarni Shores Village
Planning & Zoning Department
10050 NE 2nd Ave.
Miami Shores, FL 33138-2382
Dear Building & Zoning Board Members:
TEL: 305 - 3=1 6039 P. 002
On October 24, 1996, I, Ben V. Branscom, owner of the property at 139 NE 96th
St., M ami Shores was granted a hardship variance. This variance was needed to
construct a 6 foot stockade style wooden fence as stipulated on the agenda
itinerary.
Upon the request for a building permit, it was communicated by Mr. Lubian that
there was some concern regarding his review of the minutes pertaining to the
approval by the Planning & Zoning Board. It is Mr. Lubian's impression that his
interpretation of the minutes grants a 6 foot height only to the section of fencing
that borders the parking lot. It is for this reason that another appeal must be made
to the Board to construct the fence as requested: being 6 feet in height along it's
entire length.
The applicant strenuously pleads for an immediate permit approval owing to not
only the verbiage in the aforementioned itinerary, but in the variance request
contained in section D, which clearly indicates "the proposed fence would border
only the parking lot and the alley at the north end of the property... ".
Thank you in advance for your expeditious clarification and approvaL
Sincerely,
Ben V. Branscorn
First Union Fjlani.tc! Cc[t:cr
200 S. Biscayne Sou:ev;:rd. Suite 1670 Florida 33131-2397 (305) 373.3400 (305) 371 -6059 FAX
would make a considerable difference in regards to privacy. He stated excess noise and excess
activity that occur at night are the major concern. Vagrancy , the jump starting of cars and the
unanticipated degree of users of the parking lot at night are areas of concern. He stated that there
has been commercial dumping and storage along the fence adjacent to the property.
Mr. Blum confirmed that the dumpster is located at the far end of the parking lot away from the
commercial building. Although the parking lot is zoned to be a buffer, the commercial activity
spreads across the parking lot.
Mr. Caldwell moved that it be a finding of fact that a hardship does exist and that the variance be
approved. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Mr. Blum asked what a stockade style fence was,
Mr. Branscom replied that it was simply placing boards up against one another. Mr. LuBien
confimed that the approval was for a 6' fence on the side property line that borders the parking
lot. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE.
Angela Jacobs 25 N.W. 108 Street
Mr. LuBien explained that the garage is to the rear of the property. A sliding glass door from the
conversion out to the rear yard will be installed as well as the installation of a bath. Angela Jacobs
was present on her own behalf. She noted that the bath is existing. However, a shower will be
added. She stated that the lavatory was draining directly into the yard, but this will be brought up
to Code. Ms. Jacobs stated that she would like to eventually convert the enclosure to a bedroom.
For now, she intends to use the area for storage.
As the parking area is in the rear of the property, she needs direct access to the house from the
rear of the property, thus the sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the applicant intends to
park in the rear of the property. She stated she would. Mr. Walters asked what the required
setback was for the rear yard. Mr. LuBien stated the Code specifies a minimum of 25 feet for a
parking space.
Mr. Walters inquired as to the current use of the conversion if it will be converted into a bedroom
at a later time. Ms. Jacobs stated that the current garage door is rotten and does not want to
replace it at this time. She stated that the planned changes are to relocate the washer and dryer,
add a shower and installation of sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the interior would be
finished. She stated it would not.
Mr. Hegedus asked if consideration had been given to the septic tank size if the enclosure was
converted to a bedroom. She stated that she conferred with her engineer and it was not a
problem. Mr. LuBien confirmed that an addition of a bedroom requires approval by HRS and
DERM. Mr. Hegedus stated that the sizing of the septic tank is crucial. As she may not come
before the Board for minor alterations to the interior upon converting the enclosure to a bedroom,
it may be pertinent to check the septic tank size now.
I, Ben V. Branscom, owner of the residential property at 139 NE 96th St., intend
to appeal the decision of the building inspector to the Miami Shores Planning and
Zoning Board relating specifically to the maximum height allowance of any
boundary fencing not to exceed five feet. I hereby request a hardship variance
according to Article VII, Section 702, to seek permission from the Planning Board
to construct a wooden stockade style fence to a maximum height of 6 feet due to
the following peculiar and unusual conditions that affect the property.
A) The property is adjacent to a parking lot on it's east boundary that is used
by not only the patrons and employees of Village businesses, but by various
individuals who may or may not be Village residents, Village business patrons or
Village business employees. The usage of and access to the lot is unattended,
unrestricted and unmonitored and experiences varying levels and kinds of activity
at all hours of the day and night. In addition, the existing concrete structure that
separates the property from the parking lot which is mandated and maintained by
the city is not in compliance with the Miami Shores Village code, in that its height
is at a maximum of 4 feet, measuring a full foot lower than required and in having
been constructed after the year 1958.
B) The ordinance which affords the opportunity to construct a boundary fence
no more than 5 feet in height would restrict any attempt to create to create a
sufficient visual, acoustical or physical barrier when comparing and contrasting the
usage of the parking lot with the elevation and proximity of the residential
property. An additional fencing height of 12 inches would limit the field of vision
from the parking lot into the residence, specifically during evening hours by more
than 60 %.
C) A variance enabling the construction of a wooden stockade style fence to a
maximum height of 6 feet would create enough of a barrier to afford reasonable
use of the property in that the two rooms which would be protected by the
boundary fence are the only bedrooms in the residence. The residence would be,
to a greater degree, visually and acoustically separated from the various activities
in the lot which include, but are not restricted to commercial and residential
parking, loading and unloading, pedestrian loitering, the jump starting of cars,
vagrancy, the storage and disposal of construction materials and the dumping of
commercial and residential landscaping refuse.
D) It is in the opinion of this applicant that the fencing height ordinance exists
to afford residential property owners a degree of privacy while discouraging
excessive separatization between residential properties, an effect of blockading,
and fragmentation of residential city blocks. The proposed fence would border no
other residential lots and would exceed the allowed height by a maximum of 12
inches. The proposed fence would border only the parking lot and the alley at the
north end of the property and would be primarily visible by only the
aforementioned vantage points. In no way would this variance prove detrimental
s
z
u ,
4,
1'1% %■ 4 . EL
. •
Section 518. [Fences, wails and hedges.]
Fences, walls and hedges may be located within any yard,
including the margining thereof, subject to the following re-
quirements:
(a) Maximum height Three and one -half (3 in any required
front yard, five (5) feet in any required side yard or rear
yard; except that
(1) Any such feature along a side plot line in an R. A or 0
district that is contiguous to or across an alley from a
business or commercial district may be erected to a
height not exceeding eight (8) feet (1) along any rear
plot line, or (2) along any side plot line rearward from
a point ten ( 10) feet distant from the front plot line;
11 % o • e • • somsooeses
ef:
0 if; c t7;sc d ‘ks 4-
Gt/e_ C ie
t kiA e cf— kk a C-
6L4-- eds1 - C4k-eitxfiz_;
er \V V tY'n
frezt.
con': s , a a f
-- ?g s i -
c.11 11-
t
would make a considerable difference in regards to privacy. He stated excess noise and excess
activity that occur at night are the major concern. Vagrancy , the jump starting of cars and the
unanticipated degree of users of the parking lot at night are areas of concern. He stated that there
has been commercial dumping and storage along the fence adjacent to the property.
Mr. Blum confirmed that the dumpster is located at the far end of the parking lot away from the
commercial building. Although the parking lot is zoned to be a buffer, the commercial activity
spreads across the parking lot.
Mr. Caldwell moved that it be a finding of fact that a hardship does exist and that the variance be
approved. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Mr. Blum asked what a stockade style fence was.
Mr. Branscom replied that it was simply placing boards up against one another. Mr. LuBien
confimed that the approval was for a 6' fence on the side property line that borders the parking
lot. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE.
Angela Jacobs 25 N.W. 108 Street
Mr. LuBien explained that the garage is to the rear of the property. A sliding glass door from the
conversion out to the rear yard will be installed as well as the installation of a bath. Angela Jacobs
was present on her own behalf. She noted that the bath is existing. However, a shower will be
added. She stated that the lavatory was draining directly into the yard, but this will be brought up
to Code. Ms. Jacobs stated that she would like to eventually convert the enclosure to a bedroom.
For now, she intends to use the area for storage.
As the parking area is in the rear of the property, she needs direct access to the house from the
rear of the property, thus the sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the applicant intends to
park in the rear of the property. She stated she would. Mr. Walters asked what the required
setback was for the rear yard. Mr. LuBien stated the Code specifies a minimum of 25 feet for a
parking space.
Mr. Walters inquired as to the current use of the conversion if it will be converted into a bedroom
at a later time. Ms. Jacobs stated that the current garage door is rotten and does not want to
replace it at this time. She stated that the planned changes are to relocate the washer and dryer,
add a shower and installation of sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the interior would be
finished. She stated it would not.
Mr. Hegedus asked if consideration had been given to the septic tank size if the enclosure was
converted to a bedroom. She stated that she conferred with her engineer and it was not a
problem. Mr. LuBien confirmed that an addition of a bedroom requires approval by HRS and
DERM. Mr. Hegedus stated that the sizing of the septic tank is crucial. As she may not come
before the Board for minor alterations to the interior upon converting the enclosure to a bedroom,
it may be pertinent to check the septic tank size now.
Name of Owner /Applicant
iami crhores
F L O R 1 D A
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA OF October 24, 1996 ITEM NO. 2
751 -7517 home
Phone No. 677 -5166 work
Ben Branscom
Name of Architect/Contractor Phone No.
Address of Property, and/or Legal Description 139 N.E. 96th Street
Nature of Request Approval of variance to permit construction of a 6' wooden
stockade fence.
Present Zoning R - 20
Area of Present Building
Area of Proposed Addition
Total Area
Parking Spaces Provided
Parking Spaces Required with Addition
Setbacks as per Code : Front Side
Setbacks Provided : Front Side
VariancesMaggClat Section 518 (a)(1)
Council Action Required
Planning Board Action
Council Action
Yes
Rear
Rear
Director of Building and Zoning
I, Ben V. Branscom, owner of the residential property at 139 NE 96th St., intend
to appeal the decision of the building inspector to the Miami Shores Planning and
Zoning Board relating specifically to the maximum height allowance of any
boundary fencing not to exceed five feet. I hereby request a hardship variance
according to Article VII, Section 702, to seek permission from the Planning Board
to construct a wooden stockade style fence to a maximum height of 6 feet due to
the following peculiar and unusual conditions that affect the property.
A) The property is adjacent to a parking lot on it's east boundary that is used
by not only the patrons and employees of Village businesses, but by various
individuals who may or may not be Village residents, Village business patrons or
Village business employees. The usage of and access to the lot is unattended,
unrestricted and unmonitored and experiences varying levels and kinds of activity
at all hours of the day and night. In addition, the existing concrete structure that
separates the property from the parking lot which is mandated and maintained by
the city is not in compliance with the Miami Shores Village code, in that its height
is at a maximum of 4 feet, measuring a full foot lower than required and in having
been constructed after the year 1958.
B) The ordinance which affords the opportunity to construct a boundary fence
no more than 5 feet in height would restrict any attempt to create to create a
sufficient visual, acoustical or physical barrier when comparing and contrasting the
usage of the parking lot with the elevation and proximity of the residential
property. An additional fencing height of 12 inches would limit the field of vision
from the parking lot into the residence, specifically during evening hours by more
than 60 %.
C) A variance enabling the construction of a wooden stockade style fence to a
maximum height of 6 feet would create enough of a barrier to afford reasonable
use of the property in that the two rooms which would be protected by the
boundary fence are the only bedrooms in the residence. The residence would be,
to a greater degree, visually and acoustically separated from the various activities
in the lot which include, but are not restricted to commercial and residential
parking, loading and unloading, pedestrian loitering, the jump starting of cars,
vagrancy, the storage and disposal of construction materials and the dumping of
commercial and residential landscaping refuse.
D) It is in the opinion of this applicant that the fencing height ordinance exists
to afford residential property owners a degree of privacy while discouraging
excessive separatization between residential properties, an effect of blockading,
and fragmentation of residential city blocks. The proposed fence would border no
other residential lots and would exceed the allowed height by a maximum of 12
inches. The proposed fence would border only the parking lot and the alley at the
north end of the property and would be primarily visible by only the
aforementioned vantage points. In no way would this variance prove detrimental
to the use or prospective development of property in the vicinity in as much as the
parking lot is zoned "Double X ", a permanent designation in the Village of Miami
Shores.
I appeal to the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board to accept this variance
and look forward to presenting this case to Board.
Sincerely yours,
Ben V. Branscom
toN
1
J O
/j
/t 17
So
/d1
11'
/I
1
7 V.
MEMO
AMMO •
o 1.7
b ? G 7
7
I2 23
)
2 'a
2
4
Fillt
rms
ra MEM
It
/2
Flaffi
2
J
rr i
• /2
13
15
: /G
8 T
Ink
WSW
IMO
9 6'
E
!d /5
da7.11z_
St u 2
1
23
N4 . E .
►� •PARKING
/3 12 !t I LOT
I HOUSE 1'2
I
NO, 139
g ".A/45 /7 'l / ''
x . _ 4 3- - -
mot. E.
2 a
' 1
•��
4
9 9 T«.
7 T ".
9
T P4.
9 4 T ~_
to
M.
Section 518. (Fences, walls and hedges.]
Fences, walls and hedges may be located within any yard,
including the margining thereof, subject to the following re-
quirements:
(a) Maximum height: Three and one -half (3 in any required
front yard, five (5) feet in any required side yard or rear
yard; except that
(1) Any such feature along a side plot line in an R. A or 0
district that is contiguous to or across an alley from a
business or commercial district may be erected to a
height not exceeding eight (8) feet (1) along any rear
plot line, or (2) along any side plot line rearward from
a point ten (10) feet distant from the front plot line;
•
This property described as:'
The East $ of Lot 20 and All of
Lot 21, Block 19
AN AMENDED PLAT OF MIAMI SHORES
SECTION NO. 1,
according to the Plat
thereof, as'recorded in
Plat Book 10, Page 70
of tilt? Public Records of
Dade County, Florida.
1, 94
o
4,e
/6
/7, So
i
JO'
5 e
D
ti p
Unless it bears the signature and
the original raised seal of a Florida
licensed surveyor and mapper This •
drawing, sketch. plat or map is for
informational purposes only and is
not valid.
7"
9
D e 543eyllesic vice
‘k;
4'f, •
.o
A BOUNDARY SURVEY
1 hereby certify that the survey repre-
sented hereon meets the minimum
technical standards set lonh by the Board
of Land Surveyors In chapter 61C174
Florida A - rive Code pursuant to
Secti•- 72.027 • . Statutes. T are no
en . ts, overlaps / easements'
a • • d g on the Fla her than as
/—'1=
- "II Reg. land
4/E d i tJ
0
, AO
,
z ; : ho /, P rim
. C
Gv /574W5
/a 4d
t° 4 ' h 4
�® 0\0 \O I 1 f.,•.5.- . N
1 .40' 1
q " ; L, . , • . ` 175•' ' - •. • et4;i:/X . �..-
DATE
/2•
PROPERTY OF: Nichol1S, Richard and .Bransacom, Ben
a 03
.CU E; y l/ fb S , .,c, 0
axl
Z o , A ! 2 / 7 ro
S'C4 /C /„ - Z OO •
.X-f•E S'7":
074 .
FLOOD ZONE: X
FLOOD INFORMATION:
Community 120652
Panel No.: 93
Suffix: J
Date of F.I.R.M.: 3-2-94
Base Elevation: Not
Available
Certified To: Rapid Title
Services Company, Attorneys
Title Insurance Fund, Inc.,
Nicholls, Richard and
Home Financing Center, Inc.
its successors and /or.
assigns and Bransacom, Ben.
Note: Underground encroach-
ments and utilities, if any,
not located. Fence ownership
by visual means only, legal
ownership not determined.
cAS C3�C L
9
0 v Ze-'���/7/
/c7 - ,q14•r2c1/
70247
C'�'k� /ice e
>
i /� e, 2‘ -
L/17) - 74''n e.,
C') - ele7 /c /� �
Coi/c - C'or>crr,
/a-
a4s.•v-
e)
w7
139 N.E. 96th Street,
• 1 S E SBa 2 GARCI - A, INC.
ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - LAND PLANNERS
Rene Aiguesvives — #4327
Office address: '359 Alcazar Avers "are, Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Mailing address: PIO. Box 561131, Miami, Florida 33156
(305)666 -7909 (954) 523.8663
DRA BY DRWG. NO
45725
0
a
z