Loading...
04-19-05 Item 2be - i � CEIV e � OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (JF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Maria V. Davis, City Manager From: Michael A. Sprovero, CBO, Executive Director of Community Develop Date: April 6, 2005 RE: Complaints by Jackie Alvarez - Gautney Pertaining to RV's At Monday night's, April 4, 2005, Commission meeting the complainant Jackie Alvarez - Gautney spoke to the issue of two motor homes stored at 7854 SW 67 Court. She has been complaining about the storage of the two motor homes at the above address since the latter part of February. I have had phone conversations with her as well as Eve Boutsis. We both have explained to her that there is no violation as per the City Code. Ms. Alverez - Gautney keeps referring to the Miami -Dade County Code, which does not apply to municipalities. The county code is for unincorporated Dade County only. This has been explained to her on several occasions. Attached is a copy of the emails between Eve Boutsis, Mayor Russell and me. There are also attached copies of emails between Eve Boutsis and the complainant. The City of South Miami Land Development Code, Section 20- 3.6(L)(2) states "Storage of camp trailers shall not be permitted in required front yard setback areas." There is the code as to the number or size of= RV's permitted Ito be.at..a-residence. She made accusations at the meeting that the property owner of the subject property is receiving special consideration because he knows the City Manager and me from the City of Miami Springs. This is far from the case. Ther e no grounds to chge the property owner because there is no violation existing at the present time. He has two RV's. ne of which is stored in the side yard and the other is in the rear yard of the property. Neither of the RV's is past the front line of the building nor in the front yard setback area. MEMORANDUM RE: Complaints by Jackie Alvarez - Gautney Pertaining to RV's Date: April 6, 2005 Page 2 I had suggested to her if she wanted to see the Code changed, she should come before the Commission and suggest that changes be made. Instead she presented the situation as though the complaint is being mishandled and special considerations are being made. As I stated, this is far from the reality of the situation. If you need more information please feel free to let me know. Sprovero, Michael From: Eve Boutsis [eboutsis @ngf- law.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 2:52 PM To: msprovero @cityofsouthmiami.net Subject: RE: Trailers in side yard Importance: High Mr. Sprovero: As a follow up to our conversation earlier this week, I am confirming that it appears the property is in compliance with the city's code of ordinances. The only way the city could enforce the county code is if the county code had been adopted by the city. As you are aware, the county code applies to unincorporated Miami -Dade County only - -- unless the county code has been adopted by the city. The city has not done so. So, for example, the Village of Palmetto Bay, a newly incorporated municipality has specifically adopted the county code as its own and can enforce the county as its code. As far as the concern of "more stringent codes" -- as a general principal the principal is correct. So, for example, the state can and has adopted the Florida Building Code. A County can adopt a more stringent code. And certainly, the city can do an even more stringent code. Look at Coral Gables and how stringent their code is. However, in this circumstance, without adopting the county code it does not apply to the city - -- as it covers unincorporated Miami -Dade. Have a great weekend. Very truly yours, Eve Eve A. Boutsis, Office of City Attorney for the City of South Miami Nagin Gallop Figueredo, P.A. 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 854 -5353 Facsimile: (305) 854 -5351 eboutsis @ngf- law.com Sprovero, Michael From: Sprovero, Michael Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 3:12 PM To: Russell, Mary Cc: Davis, Maria Subject: FW: Trailers in side yard Importance: High Mayor - [ explained to the complainant yesterday that the property is in compliance with City Code. The County Code does not apply due to the fact that the County Code was not written in a fashion to apply to all municipalities, only for unincorporated Miami -Dade County and the City has not adopted the code as one of its codes. I first obtained a legal opinion from the City Attorneys office prior to talking to the complainant. The City Attorneys office told me my interpretation of the Code was correct. When I explained this to the complainant she said she wanted to talk to the City Attorney. I informed her she was more than welcome to call the attorney and gave her the phone number and Eve Boutsis name. As of this time she has not done so. After our conversation earlier this afternoon I talked to Ms. Boutsis and requested that she put the legal opinion in writing for me. This legal opinion is attached for your review. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Eve Boutsis [SMTP:eboutsis@ngf- law.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 2:52 PM To: msprovero @cityofsouthmiami.net Subject: RE: Trailers in side yard Importance: High Mr. Sprovero: As a follow up to our conversation earlier this week, I am confirming that it appears the property is in compliance with the city's code of ordinances. The only way the city could enforce the county code is if the county code had been adopted by the city. As you are aware, the county code applies to unincorporated Miami -Dade County only - -- unless the county code has been adopted by the city. The city has not done so. So, for example, the Village of Palmetto Bay, a newly incorporated municipality has specifically adopted the county code as its own and can enforce the county as its code. As far as the concern of "more stringent codes" -- as a general principal the principal is correct. So, for example, the state can and has adopted the Florida Building Code. A County can adopt a more stringent code. And certainly, the city can do an even more stringent code. Look at Coral Gables and how stringent their code is. However, in this circumstance, without adopting the county code it does not apply to the city - -- as it covers unincorporated Miami -Dade. Have a great weekend. Very truly yours, Eve Eve A. Boutsis, Office of City Attorney for the City of South Miami Nagin Gallop Figueredo, P.A. 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 854 -5353 Facsimile: (305) 854 -5351 eboutsis@ngf-law.com Sprovero, Michael From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: t� 6761 sw 80 street.ppt Eve Boutsis [eboutsis@ngf- law.com] Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:23 PM erosa @cityofsouthmiami.net; ksorto@cityofsouthmiami.net; dstruder @cityofsouthmiami.net; msprovero @cityofsouthmiami.net; cbynum @cityofsouthmiami.net msr1 @bellsouth.net FW: 7854 SW 67 Court (South Miami) an 7854 sw 67 court. ppt Hello everyone: Eva, thanks for getting me your file on the one property. Do me a favor, let me know if you and staff are available, lets say around 4:00 today to go over these two properties. Pull your files, and the RV ordinance for city. Lets go through them. I want to uniformly look at both properties and talk to you all about them. I want to lay to rest the concerns raised by the resident once and for all. I am coming in with clean slate. Moreover, I want to hear from you on these properties. I have a meeting with city manager at 3 :00. 1 assume I will be finished around 4:00 (give or take). Thanks. Very truly yours, Eve Eve A. Boutsis, Office of City Attorney for the City of South Miami Nagin Gallop Figueredo, P.A. 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 854 -5353 Facsimile: (305) 854 -5351 eboutsis@ngf-law.com - - - -- Original Message---- - From: canejack [mailto:canejack @bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:41 PM To: Eve Boutsis; msrl@bellsouth.net Subject: 7854 SW 67 Court (South Miami) Eve & Mary, As promised, attached are copies of the 2 scenarios I spoke about to the 2 of you. I fail to understand how the bus at 7854 SW 67 Court is not considered a commercial vehicle, even though it is one. It is used for business by the homeowner's son -in -law. This is clearly not a car. If this vehicle is registered to a business, it must be used for business purposes. Otherwise, it would be disallowed as a business expense. Unlike a car, which can also be used for business, commuting, and other personal use, this vehicle certainly does not fit this category. I have also attached a picture of the trailer, which the neighbors at 6761 SW 80 St were forced to get rid of, to avoid a fine from the City of South Miami. They were told this was a commercial vehicle, although they were using it merely for storage (i.e., in lieu of a shed), and they had owned it since 1989! You will find no proof that this trailer was being used for business, because it was only moved when they mowed the grass. The bus at 7854 however, is moved multiple times during the week. It also has a built in beeping alarm when it is put in reverse. (Only commercial vehicles such as buses, trucks, and commercial vans have this feature). By the way, this vehicle (and the other RV you will see in the back of the picture) also exceed the weight limit of vehicles allowed to be parked on residential property. I am concerned on various fronts: 1) Inconsistent application of the code by the City. 2) That our code is considerably less stringent than the code of Miami -Dade County of which we are a municipality. The situation at 7854 SW 67 Court is in violation of Section 33 -20 on at least four counts: (1), (2), (3) and (8) 3) The homeowner at 7854 SW 67 Court was cited by a South Miami Code Enforcement officer. When I called the complaint in, I spoke to Kenia. When I followed up with her, she informed me that the homeowner had been cited. Shortly thereafter, the homeowner was bragging that he had ripped up the complain because he had friends at City Hall (the City Manager & Mike Sprobero) who he knew from Miami Springs. When I spoke to Mike Sprobero about this, he told me that the homeowner had ripped up the complaint, because the City did not have a case against him. If so, why had he been cited in the first place? I will be glad to discuss this situation further at your convenience. I am not the only neighbor on 67th Court who is appalled by this situation, and disappointed on how the City has handled this matter so far. Sincerely, Jackie Alvarez - Gautney 7850 SW 67 Court 305 - 667 -7335 (H) 305 -552 -2371 (VV) 305 -302 -1193 (C) *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content'" IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders 't't" Sprovero, Michael From: Eve Boutsis [eboutsis @ngf- law.com] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 4:19 PM To: canejack@bellsouth.net Cc: msr1 @bellsouth.net; msprovero @cityofsouthmiami.net; erosa @cityofsouthmiami.net; dodonniley @cityofsouthmiami.net Subject: RE: 7854 SW 67 Court (South Miami) Importance: High Jackie: I have reviewed the city's violations on both properties (6761 SW 80th Street and 7854 SW 67th Court). As to the property with the trailer, if they had a problem with the citation and could present evidence that it was not being used for a commercial purpose, they may have had the ability to challenge and overturn the citation. But, they did not challenge the citation. I have no evidence that it was issued in error in first place. Nor has the citation been contested or evidence brought forward in timely basis that the citation was improperly issued. The property owner has cured the violation. As such, there is nothing more for me to do or review on that property. I have no evidence that it was issued in error. Moreover, the type of trailer is typical of commercial use trailers. As far as the RV -- it appears to be a passenger vehicle. There is no proof that the vehicle is being used for a COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. The city's code comes down to intent - and evidence of the use for a commercial purpose. Only evidence is that there was an RV - that is insufficient. Moreover, original citation was for where it was parked -- and per the photographs it was not improperly parked in front. Based upon the lack of evidence to this point the city did revoke the citation due to error (only time the city can revoke a citation is if it was issued in error). As the city's code enforcement staff has no other information (ownership by corporation is not enough - -- as many vehicles, including Mercedes, Jaguar's, etc. are owned by corporations but are just noncommercial used vehicles) as to intent and commercial use there is nothing further to do on this citation. If there is direct evidence that you or someone else would like to bring forward and testify to, then that may be a basis for bringing a citation. If you can prove that it is being used for real estate purposes on Miami Beach, or other information please bring that forward. Then, with enough information there may be a basis for showing this vehicle to be a commercial vehicle. At this point there is none. The city cannot take hearsay information and issue a citation. Despite the foregoing, it is important for me to bring the following to your attention - every few years it is a good idea for the city to go through its code. The city's Land Development Code is being revised this year by Mr. Don O'Donniley, the city's planner. I do not know if the city's code enforcement staff has a hard time in enforcing this provision and will discuss that with them. Perhaps this is one of the sections within the Land Development Code that can be enhanced. The item will be discussed with staff. Ultimately, the staff will make a recommendation to city commission on whether to modify this section of the code - to adopt a provision like the County's or perhaps what another municipality uses. Thank you. Very truly yours, Eve Eve A. Boutsis, Office of City Attorney for the City of South Miami Nagin Gallop Figueredo, P.A. 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 854 -5353 Facsimile: (305) 854 -5351 eboutsis @ngf - law.com - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Eve Boutsis Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:13 AM To: 'canejack' Cc: msr1 @bellsouth.net Subject: RE: 7854 SW 67 Court (South Miami) thanks for the information. I tried to meet yesterday with staff -- but my prior meeting went to after 5:00 and staff was gone for the day. I will try to meet with everyone today. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: canejack [mailto:canejack @ bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:17 PM To: Eve Boutsis Cc: msrl@bellsouth.net Subject: RE: 7854 SW 67 Court (South Miami) Eve, The other address (the one with the trailer) is listed in my e-mail below (6761 SW 80 St). As to how I know the RV is registered to a business and being used for business: 1) If you run the registration on the tag, you will see that it is registered to a business. A vehicle of this type is not deductible unless it is used for business purposes. (If you need the tag #, let me know, and I will get it for you). 2) RV users do not take their RV's out on personal "day" trips on a routine basis 3) The homeowner has informed other neighbors 4) The homeowner has informed the code enforcement officer (Kenia) as relayed to me by a neighbor that the RV is for business 5) 1 have been informed that the light - colored RV will be taken to South Beach tomorrow and rented for the day for some sort of commercial. (This is something that can be verified very easily by the City, by staking out the RV and following it). If 1 do the staking out and follow the vehicle myself, it will once again be just "my word." The City can see for itself by following the vehicle. The bus should also have a sign on it very soon, as it has been ordered. I will take a picture of it and forward to you as soon as this happens. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter! Jackie - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Eve Boutsis [mai Ito: eboutsis@ngf-law.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:50 AM To: canejack Cc: msr1 @bellsouth.net Subject: RE: 7854 SW 67 Court (South Miami) Importance: High Jackie I assume 7854 SW 67th Court is the RV. Can you please provide me the address on the other property that we discussed - the one that you indicated had ticketed (the one with the lawn equipment)? Also, please provide information that you believe supports a claim that the RV is being used for business purposes. All you mentioned tome is that it is being used weekly. How do you know it is being used for business purpose? How do you know the RV is registered to a business? Please provide this information to assist me in investigating this matter. The more information I have the better I can investigate and provide guidance to the city. Thank you. Very truly yours, Eve Eve A. Boutsis, Office of City Attorney for the City of South Miami Nagin Gallop Figueredo, P.A. 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 854 -5353 Facsimile: (305) 854 -5351 eboutsis@ngf-law.com - - - -- Original Message---- - From: canejack [mailto:canejack @bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:41 PM To: Eve Boutsis; msrl@bellsouth.net Subject: 7854 SW 67 Court (South Miami) Eve & Mary, As promised, attached are copies of the 2 scenarios I spoke about to the 2 of you. I fail to understand how the bus at 7854 SW 67 Court is not considered a commercial vehicle, even though it is one. It is used for business by the homeowner's son -in -law. This is clearly not a car. If this vehicle is registered to a business, it must be used for business purposes. Otherwise, it would be disallowed as a business expense. Unlike a car, which can also be used for business, commuting, and other personal use, this vehicle certainly does not fit this category. I have also attached a picture of the trailer, which the neighbors at 6761 SW 80 St were forced to get rid of, to avoid a fine from the City of South Miami. They were told this was a commercial vehicle, although they were using it merely for storage (i.e., in lieu of a shed), and they had owned it since 1989! You will find no proof that this trailer was being used for business, because it was only moved when they mowed the grass. The bus at 7854 however, is moved multiple times during the week. It also has a built in beeping alarm when it is put in reverse. (Only commercial vehicles such as buses, trucks, and commercial vans have this feature). By the way, this vehicle (and the other RV you will see in the back of the picture) also exceed the weight limit of vehicles allowed to be parked on residential property. I am concerned on various fronts: 1) Inconsistent application of the code by the City. 2) That our code is considerably less stringent than the code of Miami -Dade County of which we are a municipality. The situation at 7854 SW 67 Court is in violation of Section 33 -20 on at least four counts: (1), (2), (3) and (8) 3) The homeowner at 7854 SW 67 Court was cited by a South Miami Code Enforcement officer. When I called the complaint in, I spoke to Kenia. When I followed up with her, she informed me that the homeowner had been cited. Shortly thereafter, the homeowner was bragging that he had ripped up the complain because he had friends at City Hall (the City Manager & Mike Sprobero) who he knew from Miami Springs. When I spoke to Mike Sprobero about this, he told me that the homeowner had ripped up the complaint, because the City did not have a case against him. If so, why had he been cited in the first place? I will be glad to discuss this situation further at your convenience. I am not the only neighbor on 67th Court who is appalled by this situation, and disappointed on how the City has handled this matter so far. Sincerely, Jackie Alvarez - Gautney 7850 SW 67 Court 305 - 667 -7335 (H) 305 - 552 -2371 (W) 305- 302 -1193 (C) eSafe scanned this email for malicious content **'r *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ZONING REGULATIONS 20 -3.6 (f) Minimum for screen enclosures shall be: RT -6 All Other districts front 25 feet rear 10 feet 10 feet side, interior 0 feet 7.5 feet side, street 15 feet * setbacks required are set forth in sections 20 -3.5 E, 20 -3.5 F, and 20-3.5'G. (g) Screen enclosures shall not be included in the computation of the total building area or required pervious area; cement slabs within a screen enclosure are in- cluded in the computation of required pervious area. (5) Portable pools. (a) Portable pools, four (4) feet or less above grade, are not subject to the enclosure requirements in this section. (b) Any steps or ladders leading up to such a pool shall be properly enclosed with fence and gate conforming to the requirements of this section. (K) Whirlpool Spas. (1) -Open, enclosed or screen enclosures covering whirlpool spas may occupy r ^ ^uired rear or side yards, subject to the requirements of this section. (2) Impervious coverage shall be as per Section. 20 -3.5. (3) Minimum front setback shall be at the rear of the front building fine. (4) Minimum side setbacks shall be five (5) feet each and minimum rear setbacks shall be twelve and one -half (12.5) feet. (5) In instances where a screen enclosure or wall serves as a structural part of the spa, the side setback shall be not less than five (5) feet and the rear setback shall be not less than ten (10) feet from the lot line. (6) Spas shall be subject to the protective enclosure requirements applicable to swimming Pools. (L) Boats and Trailers. (1) Accessory storage of boats, other than those generally accepted to be of a rowing or Paddling type, shall be permitted only on a trailer. (2) Storage of camp trailers shall not be permitted in required front yard setback areas. (M) Tennis Courts. (1) Minimum front yard setbacks for tennis courts shall be at the rear of the front building line. (2) Minimum rear and side yard setbacks for tennis courts shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet each. Supp. No. 1 59