30 NE 96 St (7)July 22nd, 1984
MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
10050 N.E. 2nd. Ave.
Miami Shoreo,Fla. 33138
Gentlemen;
i
Re; Anthony Pazienza
30 N.E.96th 3t.
Miami Shoreo,Fla. 33138
It is the wish of this resident of Miami Shores to have the Council
consider my plight in its just per It mu be noted that my
application to the Miami Shores Planning Board for information in Iden-
tifying my violation were subrogated in a motion to deny a variance.
At this time I respectfully ask the Council to review my cage referring
to S ections 524 and 526 of the code. I ask for an interpretation of these
Statues. I believe what I have done iq alter a nonconforming building
completely complying with all condition of these section
What I reconstructed was less than 50% of an existing noncomforming buil-
ding altering an eyesore to a structure more harmonious to the neighborhood.
The existing foundation , slab, three sided cement wall approximately four
ft. high and the screen door were left in place. I replaced the existing
screen and wood framing because of its extremely deteriorated condition
with new screening an aluminum framing. The existing roof was a campo.ite
of five different material (corrigated fiberglass and tin, tar 9 wood and
chickenwire) which I replaced with an aluminum roof. I did all the work
myself over a four month period. I choose the materials used because of its
clean appearance and the various similar structures in close proximity to
my home.(Ex. 16 N.E. 100th St.) One can argue that no permit was applied
for; I will pay the appropriate penaltie and make application. One can al-
so argue that an illegal aluminum material was u in the roof construction;
I will replace the roof with a conforming material. It cannot be argued that
violation exists ba on the pure exi of the s tructure ba on exis-
ting code I did, not materially prolong the life of the dwelling, nor did
I enlarge it or increase it value in exce of 50%. I altered a limited
portion of it retaining harmony. And making it not a source of complaint
by my neighbor but one of praise.
In conclusion I respectfully s ubmit that the violation of the s etback wa
perpetrated to the be of my knowledge s ome twenty to twenty -five year
ago by the former resident and allowed to remain in exi for this pe-
riod assumably attaining tolerable acceptance. I recently altered a limited
portion of the structure improving it appearance and it becomesimmediabely
a violation. This I cannot believe corresponds with the code of Miami shored.
I ask of you a just interpretation after knowing all the facts.