01-09-1997 Regular Meeting•
MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 9, 1997
The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, January 9, 1997 in
the Chamber of the Village Hall commencing at 7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order with
the following members present:
Present: Cliff Walters, Chairman
Thomas J. Caldwell
Frank Hegedus
Les Forney
Robert Blum
Also Present: Mark Ulmer, Village Attorney
Frank LuBien
Lisa Kroboth
ITEM #1 MINUTES - DECEMBER 12, 1996
Mr. Blum asked that on page 2, Item #3, paragraph 2, line 2, the phrase "the proposed" be
replaced with "a wood" to read "The other is the 5 foot height of a wood fence being non -
harmonious with the surrounding area."
Mr. Caldwell moved for approval of the minutes of December 12, 1996 as submitted. Mr.
Hegedus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT PAINTING OF
ROOF. Daniel B. Demirgian 9101 N.E. 2 Avenue
Mr. LuBien noted that the applicant requested that the item be postponed to a later date as he is
out of town. Mr. Caldwell moved to table the item to the next meeting. Mr. Blum seconded the
motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.
Planning & Zoning
January 9, 1997 Page 2
ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW FOR PROPERTY TO REMAIN IN
ITS PRESENT CONDITION - CONVERTED GARAGE TO APARTMENT.
Aparecido DaSilva 9413 North Miami Avenue
Mr. LuBien explained that there exists on this property a converted garage to an efficiency
apartment which is a violation of the Code of Ordinances regarding single family residence. The
conversion was noted upon inspection of the property by the Building Official. The owner stated
that the conversion was in its present condition upon the purchase of the property in September
1996.
Abbie Salt, the attorney for the applicant, Mr. DaSilva, was present on his behalf She stated that
Mr. DaSilva was not notified by the seller or realtor that the conversion was done improperly.
The owner does not intend to rent the conversion. However, it would be used as a guest house.
It was noted that the applicant had been cited by Code Enforcement.
Mr. Forney inquired as to when the conversion was completed. Mr. LuBien stated that there was
no record of the work as it was done illegally. He estimated that the work was completed
approximately five to ten years prior. He noted that the garage is an accessory building - separate
from the main building.
Questions as to the parliamentary process regarding the application arose. Mr. Ulmer stated that
based on the testimony, it appears the Code Enforcement Board deferred the violation to allow
the applicant to apply for an after -the -fact building permit. The Building Official must then
determine whether it is appropriate to issue the permit. Mr. Forney asked if there was a statute of
limitations. Mr. Ulmer stated that there can be no estopel against the Village. Mr. Hegedus
noted that Dade County Code states that any structure built without a permit is considered to be
unsafe thus it is unhabitable.
Mr. LuBien noted that during the inspection of the property, the owner was informed that the
conversion was an unlawful and it would have to be restored to its original condition. Mr.
LuBien told the owner that a permit could not be issued for the conversion, thus this was a denial
for a permit by the Building Official. Ms. Salt stated that it would cause the owner undo hardship
to remove the kitchen.
Mr. Blum noted that the Board must enforce the Code and that the Board has consistently denied
previous applications for garage conversion such as this. Mr. Ulmer informed the Board that the
Village Council has discussed a proposed ordinance regarding a certificate of occupancy. Mr.
Ulmer noted that financial hardship for the restoration is not a basis for a hardship variance.
Mr. LuBien noted that if any non -conforming use has ceased for a period of six months, the non-
conforming use can no longer continue. Mr. Ulmer concurred. Mr. Caldwell expressed his
concern that the owner was not present on his own behalf. Ms. Salt stated that the owner was
out of town. However, he could attend the next meeting.
Planning & Zoning
January 9, 1997 Page 3
A motion was made and subsequently withdrawn. Ms. Salt withdrew the application before the
Board and will re -submit the application at a later date. She asked that the Building Official re-
inspect the property to ensure that the conversion was a violation of Code.
ITEM #4 RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT LESS THAN 15 FEET FROM
ACCESSORY BUILDING.
George Bennett 10007 NE 1 Avenue
Mr. Ulmer explained that the applicant felt that the chance for reconsideration at the last Board
meeting was denied by the Recording Secretary. He has filed a motion for re -hearing. Mr.
Caldwell made a motion to reconsider the request. Mr. Forney seconded the motion and the vote
was unanimous in favor.
Mr. Bennett stated that he would like to have the protection of the carport for his car as well as a
covered work area. Mr. Caldwell expressed his dislike of the four foot distance between the
accessory building and the carport. Mr. Blum maintains that the addition can be completed
without a violation of Code. Mr. Caldwell agreed.
Mr. Caldwell moved that the application be denied. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. The vote
was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #5 ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Walters asked that the septic tank size be a consideration during the inspection of the garage
conversion presented earlier. Mr. LuBien noted that as there is a bathroom in the conversion, any
sewage lines running from the accessory building should be included in the plans. Mr. Caldwell
asked that the layout of the conversion also be a consideration. It was noted that the enforcement
action taken was due to a complaint that someone was living in the garage. The Board asked that
upon inspection of the garage conversion, the Building Official look for a separate electric meter.
The Board discussed the re -occupancy ordinance. Mr. Ulmer asked that the Board give guidance
to the Building Official in determining a residence to be zoned single-family. The Board stated
electric meters and kitchens should be a consideration. Mr. Blum suggested that the guidelines be
similar to those used for garage enclosures. Mr. Walters commended the Council for taking a
proactive stance on this issue.
•
•
Planning & Zoning
January 9, 1997 Page 4
Mr. Forney asked if the problem was that widespread in the Village and whether the problem
could not solved in some other way. Mr. Ulmer apprised the Board of the Council discussion
regarding this issue. He asked that the time frame for an appeal of the Building Official's decision
be adopted by the Board or by ordinance.
At the request of the Village Manager, Mr. LuBien asked for the Board's input regarding the
proliferation of neon signs in a commercial district. Mr. Caldwell stated that the Board should
consider a limitation for neon signs. Mr. Blum concurred, noting that the size is still restricted by
the Code. Mr. Ulmer noted that the Village can regulate signs based on aesthetics. However, it
can not discriminate. It was the consensus of the Board to have the issue regarding signs placed
on a future agenda for discussion with references to include sign ordinances from other
municipalities.
Mr. LuBien also asked the Board for an opinion regarding the combining of two residential
properties. Mr. Ulmer noted that the properties would need to be replatted.
The January 9, 1997 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
eth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary