02-15-94OFFICIAL AGENDA
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, FL 33143
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
February 15, 1994 Next Commission Meeting: 3/1/94
7:30 p.m.
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance
America
C. Presentations:
to the Flag of the United States of
D. Items for Commission Consideration:
1) Approval of Minutes - 2/1/94 and 2/9/94
2) City Manager's report
3) City Attorney's report
ORDINANCE - 2ND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING:
none
RESOLUTION FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
none
C
s ,r
Q`
RESOLUTIONS: %C2_ 1 � � /6
/ 1
4. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of
South Miami, Florida, appointing ... as Interim City Attorney
of the City of South Miami pending the selection of a
permanent City Attorney at a retainer of ... effective
February 15, 1994; said funds to be expended from Account
Number 1500 -3120 "Professional Services."
��^ (Mayor Carver) 3/5
5. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of
South Miami, Florida denying an appeal by Raymond A. Melton
from an Administrative decision construing the Land
Development Code to require the property commonly known as
4032 SW 62 Avenue, South Miami, Florida 33143, to have a
minimum of 60 feet frontage per buildable lot and thus consist
of one buildable lot.
1-4` q4- 9411 (Commission) 3/5
6. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of
South Miami, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to execute
a six months' lease renewal for a storage facility for the
warehousing of vehicles held by the Police Department pursuant
to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act; authorizing an
Jexpenditure not to exceed $4,017.00 for six months and not to
exceed $669.50 for each monthly extension and charging the
disbursement to Account No. 08- 1910 -4400 "Forfeiture Fund -
Rentals and Leases �41 "
q4- ^ P- (Administration) 3 / 5
7. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of
South Miami, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to disburse
the sum of $5,893.39 representing fees incurred for legal
services by Leibowitz and Spencer regarding the City's cable
television franchise renewal request and for advice regarding
Federal Cable Television Statutes and charging the
disbursement to Account No. 2100 -3420 "Consultant - Cable TV
Franchise."
(Administration) 3/5
OFFICIAL AGENDA
February 15, 1994
2nd page
RESOLUTIONS:
8. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of
South Miami, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to disburse
the sum of $12,588.75 representing fees incurred for legal
services by Gregory Borgognoni of Ruden, Barnett ETAL,
regarding the Bakery Cent+ , $12,378.75 and in the case of
Steiglitz vs. City of South Miami, $210.00 and charging the
disbursement to account Number 2100 -4910; "Comprehensive
Plan- Special Attorney."
(Administration) 3/5
ORDINANCES - 1ST READING:
none
REMARKS:
none
PURSUANT TO FLA STAT. 266.0105, THE CITY HEREBY ADVISES THE PUBLIC
THAT IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THIS BOARD,
AGENCY OR COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT ITS
MEETING OR HEARING, HE OR SHE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AFFECTED PERSON MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH
RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS
TO BE BASED. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT BY THE CITY
FOR THE INTRODUCTION OR ADMISSION OF OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE OR
IRREVELANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS
NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW.
{ i
RESOLUTION; N;O.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, APPOINTING
AS INTERIM CITY
ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PENDING THE
SELECTION OF A PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY AT A
RETAINER OF EFFECTIVE
FEBRUARY 15, 1994; SAID FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED
FROM ACCOUNT NO. 1500 -3120 "PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES ".
WHEREAS, the City attorney of the City of South Miami has
submitted his resignation and the Commission is desirous of
obtaining services of legal counsel;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That be and is
hereby appointed as the Interim City Attorney of the City of South
Miami pending the selection of a permanent City Attorney at a
retainer of effective February 15, 1994; said
funds to be expended from Account No. 1500 -3120 "Professional
Services."
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February, 1994.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
4
APPROVED:
MAYOR
1
F'
RISOLUTION N0.
A RKSOLUTIGN OF THE XkYGR AND CITY COMMISSIO19 OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, TLORIDA DENYING AN WRIL BY
RAYMOND 1. MELTON FROM IN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
CONSTRUING THE LAND DEFELOPKENT ' CODY TO RZOUIRE THE
PROP227Y COMMONLY ' XWOWN AS 4 032 S.W. 62 1VZXUZ, SOUTH
XIAXI, PLORIDA 33143 T4 HIVE A HINIXUH OP 60 FMT
FRONTAGE PER BUILDABLE LOT AND THUS CONSIST OF ONZ
BUILDAHL2 LOT
WHEREAS, Raymond 1.14elton requested an opinion of the City
of South Miami Department of Building, Zoning, and Community
Develop"nt as to the minimum lot frontage for a► buildable lot
for the property commonly known am 4032 Sew. 62 Avenue, South
Miami, Florida 33143; and
Tf(BRERS, the Department of Building, Zoning, and Community
Development concluded that for the zone in vhich the aforesaid
property is located the minimum lot frontage for a buildable lot
is 60 feet, ouch that only one residence can be constructed on
the aforesaid property; and
VHBAEAS, Hr. Melton believes the property should be
considered by the City to contain two buildable Iota; and
VHMMS, section 20 -6.I. (R)(1) of the Land Development Code
of the City of South Kiami, Florida, provides that "(tShe City
Commission shall serve as the appellate body for all appeals of
administrative decisions "; and
WHSQRbar the City Commission has now hoaxd and conaidazed
the appeal by Raymond k. Melton and the arguments and documents
(if any submitted) by the appellant and by the City
Administration.
NOW, TMRFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THR MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the appeal of Raymond A. Melton from. an
addinixtrativp darialnn nonaiderin0 the propaxty commonly known
as 4032 S.V. 62 Avenue, South Miami, Ploride 33143 as containing
one buildable lot, be, and the mane hereby in, denied.
PASSED AHD ADOPTED this th day of February, 1994.
1PPROVED:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORK:
CITY ATTORNE`!
I\ Zltlll0llll ./77' /10[[L /Y /QU012
15700 2U 103
i-7%Il nd.. -?V 33157
305) 256 -7264
December 29. 1993
Mr. William Hampton
City Manager
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami. FL 33143
Re: LETTER DATED OCTOBER 4, 1993
TO CENTURY 21, LEE MALOFF REALTY
Dear Mr. Hampton:
I am writing to request the City of South Miami to declare my property, designated as:
Block 1. Lots 6 and 7, McKeever Terrace, PBK- PG. 9 -49
be declared two lots as originally purchased in 1960 and where 1 resided for 32 years and
have paid te.Yes through 1994.
When I received the referenced letter was the first indication I had that my property
consisting of two lots (6900 s.f. each) had been rezoned as one lot. At the time this notice
and any other public notice was decided I was dealing with the terminal illness or my wife
and not aware of the action.
Since that time due to the financial stress placed on me due to my wife's long illness and
subsequent death I did not have the funds to rebuild when the hurricane on August 2-4. 992
m y house at 4032 S.W. 62nd Ave. was destroved by trees felled by Hurricane Andrew aionu
^^ ���Tiit -of -way in:front of said property.
Therefore. I demolished the dwelling at this site. My son and I then moved to Virginia to
begin a new life. From Virginia I placed my two lots for sale with Century 21 Real Estate
(referenced above) shortly thereafter.
City Manager
December 28, 1993
Paac Two
On October 4, 1993 my real estate agent asked for and received a letter from Slaven Kobola
of the Zoning Department of South Miami. After reading this letter I returned to Miami
approximately one week later. I then went to the Zoning Department to question this
decision. I have spoken with Dean Mimms, William Mackey and William Hampton. I have
been unable to get a reasonable solution to my problem. Due to lack of information and
cooperation from the Zoning Department, and ignorance on my part of the law, it has taken
until now to decide on a course of action. I have spent much time in researching the "Land
Development Code of the City of South Miami ", "Florida Statutes ", and "The United States
Constitution"
Due to the responses received from the afore mentioned' ersons I hereby request my right
as per Section 20 -6.2 Para. (A) through (G) "Standing to Appeal" of the "Land Development
Code of the City of South Miami" which allows for an Appeal.
Due to the decision set forth in the above referenced letter the value of my property has
decreased, making it hard to sell at a fair market value. Therefore, I request a resolution
to my problem at a meaningful time and manner in order to diminish the cost to the
taxpavers of the City of South Miami. If I am forced to pursue this through the courts the
taxpayers arc the ultimate losers.
Regards,
41;
Raymond A. Melton
cc: Attorney General
Mayor of South ;Miami - Cathy %,IcCann
South Miami Citv Commissioners:
T homas Cooper
File
Neil Carver
3etty Bank
Ann Bass
v YVi\ •V V. �IIY L�11 ��. ~411r MI =M1 �`'4 \tl" � " =v 'r
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: William Hampton, City Manager
FROM: Gregory P. Borgognoni
DATE: January 10, 1994
RE: Melton Property Development Issue
cc: Dean Mimms, Director, Planning and Zoning Department
I. FACTS
You have asked me to determine whether property owned by
Mr. Ray Melton, consisting, as originally platted, of two
vacant single family lots of record, can be developed as two
separate lots, each containing a single family residence.
The relevant facts as I understand them are as f --llows:
a) Mr. Melton owns what were originally platted as two
single
family
lots
in the City of
South Miami;
b)
The
lots
in uuestion
have at all tires since the
nassace of the Land Development Code been owned wy Mr, 'Melt::
and have c--ntinuous frontage with one another;
c) Each lot has
frontage. of 50
feet, for
a Dotal of
1J3
feet frontage;
the relevant
provision
of the
:,anr
Development Code requires 60 foot frontage in tta applicable
_atecorv; and
A) -5oth lots are vacant.
The discussion and conclusion that follow are based upon
.e facts set forth above; accordingly, if have
misunderstood any of the facts, please let, me know as soon as
possible.
c ^ —czv i k
ZNy :7- i ;JJ�`i,
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Governing Land Development Code Provision. The
provision of the City of South Miami Land Development Code that
governs the Mr. Melton'`s request is Section 20- 4.o(D), which
provides as follows:
'1) In any district in which single - family dwellings are
permitted, a single- family dwelling and customary
accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot
of record at the effective date of adoption or
amendment of this Code, notwithstanding 1= :citations .
imposed'by other provisions of this Code.
(a) Such lots must be in separate ownership and not
of continuous frontage with other lots in the
same ownership.
(b) This provisions shall apply even-though such lot
fails to meet the requirements for area or width,
or both, that are generally applicable in the
district, provided that yard dimensions and
requirements other than for are or width, or
both, of the lot conform to regulations for the
district in which the lot is located.
(2) in order to minimize the number of nonconforming lots,
if two or more adjoininct vacant and m acted lots
retirements of the district in which 'hey are
located, then such group of lots and/or parcels a ll
be considered as a single lot or several lots of such
size as is Necessary to met the minimum dimensional
requirements of the district.
(a) No norticn of said narcel shall be uses cr sosa
in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot,
width and area requirements established by =his
Code.
(b) No division
of
any
parcel shall be =ade ,hick
creates a
%am
with
width or area Zelow the
requirements
;f
this
code.
2
:�1 . ~vii v .:��.:1.•. :�1 .+.r .x:11 �. y.. ,1,...i �.
In Mr. Melton's case, his parcel falls squarely within the
underlined provisions. -t s therefore mandated by the Land
Development Code that 'Mr. %ielton's property be "considered as a
single lot ", and that It :.at become two home sites because such
a use would "diminish compliance with lot width ...recruirements
established by this Code." This is so because the individual
originally platted lots of record are too small to meet the
frontage requirements of the district as currently imposed by
the Land Development Code.
H. The Gomez Case. The resolution of the litigation n
Gomez v. City of South Miami, (Fla. 11th Judicial Circuit Case
:to. 91- 53651), is irrelevant to Mr. Melton's situation., =n the
Gomez case, one of the two originally platted lots of record in
uestion was vacant, but the other was the site of a single
family residence and, therefore, there were not "two or more
adjoining vacant and platted lots and /or parcels with
continuous frontage" nor purposes of the above - referenced
cect4cn of the =and Development Code; the :act that two
originally platted lots -of record had been in continuous
- _wnership antil aftsr the Code was passed, and had continuous
frontage, was irrelevant because the 'lots were not both
vacant. accordingly, the provisions of Section 20- 4.S(D)(1)
ecruired the City _o permit the requested development..
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing rsasons, Mr. Melton's application should-
'--a denied.
or �:ou reference, T nave attached to this -emorandun
4/ 71-'DEN. EARN=. '.1cCLOSKY. 5 AITN cCril "Frl= 9,
. .l1 '.� v 4v" ... ..� .�., r`• r..�,��• -.�. •A-�.'� v. • �.• 1.r, .�vv �r - .iv • r..r
♦1 .1\
Section 20 -4.8 of the Land Development Code and the Gomez
Iaint.
PSAOl1729
.. , -. :�: � —�- :".Oi{ ,' =UDE^t, �?RKE:^ ..�c;t► -- _�,�, � "DE ':c 77:..
i
SECTION 4.8 .110MCONFORN.I,NG USES
t
t3) The intermittent, temporary or illegal use of land .
or buildings shall not be su�'ficient to establish
the existence of a nonconforming use.
(4) The existence of a nonconforming use on part of a
t lot or tract shall not be construed to establish a
nonconforming use on the entire lot or tract.
(D) Nonconforming Lots of Record
tl) in any district in which single - family dwellings
are permitted, a single - family dwelling and
customary accessory buildings may be - erected on any
single lot of record at the effective date of
adoption or amendment of this Code, notwithstanding
limitations Imposed by other provisions of ;.his
Code.
(a) Such lots must be in separate ownership and
not of continuous .frontage with other lots in
the same ownership.
(b) This provisions shall apply even though such
lot fails to meet the requirements for-area or
width, or both, that are generally applicable
in the district, provided that yard dimensions
and requirements other than for area or width,
or both, of the lot conform to regulations fcr
the district -n which the _ct is located.
) In order to minimize the number of nonconforming
lots, if two or more adjoining •vacant and platted
lots and /or parcels with continuous frontage an a
public street in continuous ownership since the time
of passage of this Code, and if. either or any :f
such lots or parcels individually is /are too small
in any dimension to meet the yard, width and '-at
area reauirements.of the district in which t ey are
located, =hen such group of 1.,:_ and /cr parcels
snail be considered as a single _ct or _everai __ts
Such ._ze as z necessary -- :-,,et she min :.mum
dimensional requirements of the _:str:ct.
a 1 No part-,on of said parcel snai i. be used or so-lc
in a runner whlcn cimini.shes compliance ::itn
lot width and area requirements established by
this Code.
'AND ;,EVELOPHENT CODE .:Ty of SOUTH XIAMI
SECTION 4.8 ,YONCONFORYING USES
(b) No division of any parcel shall be made which
creates a lot With width 'or area below the
requirements of this Code.
113) if any person shall have at any time after passage
of this Code, created a lot or parcel which fails to
conform with the dimensional requirements of the
district in which it is located by selling part of
a lot, such sale shall have no effect for purposes
of this Code.and the lots and /or parcels shall still
be considered as part of one (1) or more lots.
(E) Nonconforming Use of Land
! 1 } There at the time of passage of this Code, 1 awful
use of land exists which would not be permitted by
regulations imposed by this Code, the use may be
continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful,
subject to conditions provided herein:
(2) Such nonconforming use of land shall be subject to
the following conditions:
(a) No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or
:ncreasea, nor extendea to occupy a greater
area of land than was occupied at the effective
Gate of adoption or amenament cf _his Code;
1610 such nonconforming use shall be moved _n
whole or in part to any portion of the lot or
parcel other than that occupied by such use as
.of the effective date of this Code;
ic; `:o :additional structure not conforming to the
reauirements cf this Code shall be erected in
connection with such nonconforming use of :and.
F) Nonconforming Use of Signs and Structures
i; here a _awful structure exists at the - rffectzve
:ate :f adoption or amendment :' = is .ode _hat
could ^ot be built under the terms cf this Code by
season cf restrictions on areas, lot :overage,
'.eight, yards, its _ocation on the lot, or other
reauirements zoncerning :-.e structure, sucn
L :EVELOPMEVT :OOE C1T`: OF SOUTH MIAMI
- 3 7
TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT I.1 kND FOR CADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL jURISDICTION'DIVISION
CASE NO.
ROGELIO GOMEZ and
OLGA GOMEZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs:
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Defendant.
91-5010,3651
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Rogelio Gomez and Olga Gomez sue the City of Slouth
Miami and, for their causes of action, state as follows:
AS TO ALL COUNTS
1. This is an action fe- weclaratory relief oursuant
to Chapter 86,
F. S . ,
and
for injunctive
relief. The
Plaintiffs are in
doubt as to
their rights as
follows.
2.
Rogelio
Gomez
and 0lga Gomez are
the owners of
property
located
in the
City
of South Miami,
Oade County,
'Florida,
specifically
lot
block 7, of "Bird Road
:states".,
according :.a lzhe plat thereof :s :e=orded - ??at
Book 19,
page 76,
of the
Dade
County Public Records.
n cepy
�� the
toundary
survey
°_or
said = roperty
attar.. ^,ed ss
C V�
'Wo�
exhibit "A ".
3. The City of South Miami ( "City "; is a municipal
corporation located in Dade County, Florida.
4. The said. lot 4, block 7, has remained a vacant lot
since the plat thereof was recorded. The said lot is 51
feet in width, 100 feet in depth, has an area of 5,100
square feet, is in 'separate ownership, and is not of
continuous frontage with other lots owned by the Plaintiffs.
S. The Plaintiffs submitted a set of plans to the
City, seeking the issuance of a building permit For a single
family home on lot 4, block 7. Notwithstanding that the
subject property is zoned for single family construction,
the City refused to issue a building per-mit therefor. No
written refusal of said application was irovided by the
City.
6. The PlaintifFs were orally advised that the City
was constr -,ing Section 20-4.8(D) of the �ity, s zoning
ordinance (adopted October 26, 1989, years subs- aauent to the
recording of the plat for the subject lot) so as to preclude
the issuance of any building permit on said lot. A copy of
said Section 20- 4.8(01 is attached as exhibit "a"
Count
Alt. iouc h said Sect;cn '0-4-VD) does -'cc _act
preclude the issuance of the requested building permit, but
in :act aut: orizes such as the said ':.ot Is a nonconfc_:ninc
for a public hearing
rot of record, the Plaintiffs applied
to permit the use of said lot. The application was "not
accepted" by the City, as reflected on exhibit attached
hereto.
?. The decision of the City renders the subject lot
with so reasonable use.
The Plaintiffs allege and aver that said Section
20-- 4.a(E) does not preclude the issuance of a building
permit for a single family home on the subject lot. The
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy either at law or
administratively. They will thus be irreparably injured and
lose the use and value of their lot unless this Court takes
jurisdiction and compels the City to issue the requested
building permit.
Count
.
10. The subject lot 4, block 7, is the only vacant Ict
remaining in the "Bird Road Estates" subdivision and is
surrounded by lots of the identical size, each and every one
of which is a nonconforming lot developed with a single
family home. A copy of the official section map for the
area is attached as exhibit D, as is a copy of the official
aerial photographs as exhibit E, reflecting zhe said
development.
1:.. As the subject lot 4, block 7, is -.he last
remaining vacant lot :: t:;e entire surrounding area, here
4POOO
J
_..�..nn! t.�.
is here no valid public purpose served by precluding its use
as a single family home. The prohibition of a single family
home on the subject property is arbitrary, unreasonable, a
taking of the Plaintiffs' property rights and a denial of
the equal protection of the law.
'WHEREFQP.E, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court take
jurisdiction of this Complaint and that it;
1. declare the rights of the Plaintiffs and the City
in relation to the City's regulations;
2. issue the injunctive relief necessary to secure the
Plaintiffs' rights to the use of their said property;
3. order the City to issue the applied for building
permit;
4.
grant
costs
of suit
to.the
Plaintiffs;
S.
grant
'such
other
and
further relief as may be
proper.
6. Retain jurisdiction pursuant, to Chapter E6, ..
�o n Fletcher
Fla. Var No. 025360
�'ttorney For Plaintiffs
Suite 304
7600 Red Road
South Miami, F1 =3143
(305) 9-65 -7521
r LCIZ"ATION SKETCH
SCALE: 1" , 100'
sw. 42nd 7ERR .
FI'21 10 '9 8 7 6 5 G 3' 2 1 S
r
$13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ZG $
55� G1 r r► I r► rr rr +r , u n
SW. 43 rd 57REF- 7
LEWL DESCWMN
Lot _ �_� � IIIInD ROAD ESTATZS"
==am the 00 met" cs tecvraed to PId Book _.° -- at page 5— of ttte Put�llk Recoras at Dace
CounlY. Fio 4M
Fat'. FLORM MWAAMNAL INC
.BOG No: 199 -91 giro. Truro vas D11�: o5/03I91
99 -9i wwt Room am (�VtStON
F.B. Na p°°f reMUOa
tii:RESY CEFiTF'f. nxzt the cttacnec BOJNDARY SURMOf the above de=lbed txooedV h tn�s and catrect ro the Mast
of rm Wa*"ctpe ana b" cs recenrt+r uxmved undet tiro arecslvn one thC1t theta ore no enaoocr fwnn other #cn
thole Vowtt. ono mean the Interu of the MWtttuTS tecWk& _knee= ser With by the Fkxm Boors d Lcno Surmy rs
pr wav to Sacoon 472.D'17 of FkXW Statutes.
%RMYOR'S NOTES:
• leper desCtrOM was tumWwd by C' eW" q Q�,Y, dtoom the tx mm.
• F,m mrahMd f Abstract of Tlttevhp have b be Erode to detetmine recorded Inshunenfs.
• leper dffCttC m si+ol O to env aecfoott4m um ' resmcttorn tou rwr4m of eos,ernenu of reoorc.
,rte
vKAMC ti
s�crtON 4.8' , _ NaNaQ F'o rxa USES
(3) The intermittent, temporary or illegal uae of land
or buildings shall not be sufficient to establish
the existence of a nonconforming use,
(4) The existence of a nonconforming use on part of a
lot or tract shall not be construed to establish a
nonconforming use on the entire lot or tract.
(D) Nonconforming Lots of Record
(1) in any district in which single - family dwellings
are permitted, a single- family dwelling and
customary accessary buildings may be erected on any
single lot of record at the effective date of
adoption or amendment of this Code, notwithstanding
limitations imposed by other provisions of this
Code.
(a) Such lots must be in separate ownership and
not of continuous frontage with other Iota in
the same ownership.
(b) This'provisions shall apply even though such
lot fails to meet the requirements for area or
width, or both, that are generally-applicable
in the district, provided that yard dimensions
and requirements other than for area or width,
or both, of the lot conform to regulations for
the district in which the lot is located.
(Z) In order to minimize the number of nonconforming
'lots, if two or more adjoining vacant and platted
lots and /or parcels with continuous frontage on a
public street in continuous ownership since the time
of passage of this Code, and if either or any of
such lots or parcels individually is /are too small
in any dimension to meet the yard, width' and lot
area requirements of the district is which they are
located, then such group of iota and /or parcels
shall be considered as a single lot or several lots
of such size as is necessary to ;met the minimum
dimensional requirements of the district.
(a) No portion of said parcel shall be used or sold
in a manner which diminishes compliance with
lot width and area requirements established by
this Code.
SAND DEVELOPMENT C0 �.. l= CF SOUTH IA I
I
1`.
I�
.:'Ti1•:.,'�1
..'.,ii
... •=.G
�t.:�'�:i�
G�. ^.�iF
.�.Q;�l ..'
"''. ....� ..... _..
_ ,...
'. .
SSG"!"
10
d . 8
NONCONFORUIN
• USES
(b) No division of any parcel shall be made which
creates a lot with width or area below the
requirements of this Code.
(3) If any person shall have at any time after passage
of this Code created a lot or parcel which fails to
conform with the dimensional requirements of the,
district in which it is located by selling part of
a lot, such sale shall have no effect for purposes
of this Code and the lots and /or parcels shall still
be considered as part of one (1) or more lots.
(E) Nonconforming Use of Land
(1 ) Where at the time of passage of this Code, lawful
use of land exists which would not be permitted by
regulations imposed by this Code, the use maT be
continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful,
subject to conditions provided herein.
(2) Such nonconforming use of land shall be subject to
the following conditions:
(a) Flo such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or
increased, nor extended to occupy a greater
area of land than was occupied at the effective
date of adoption or amendment of this Code,
(b) No, such nonconforming use shall be moved in
whole or in part to any portion of the lot or
parcel other than that occupied by such use as
of the effective date of this Code;
(c) No additional structure not conforming to the
requirements of this Code shall be erected in
connection with such nonconforming use of land,
(F) Nonconforming Use of Signs and Structures
(1) Where a lawful structure exists at the effective
date of adoption or amendment of this Code that
could not be built under the terms of this Code by
reason of restrictions on areas, lot coverage,
height, yards, 1-ts location on the lot, or other
requirements concerning the structure, such
LAND ""EYELOPMENT CODE /� CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
.:. _ .... Zhu of South Miami
6LM & mass 0rhm 5oush mwn%L Fcnda33143
M?=Chnax roR FQBLIc HEMMG BMMRZ M AMMM BOARD
property owners ec4W AiG 6:).We.Z signature:
Address: �iiLSrs► S .07.'�!: ioA. Phonn Nusbers �6G -3 /mod.
Represarstod Bys A?CK81io 4Ge--W organization:
Address 4,q,yf: AS,t9m ✓F. Phones I
Architect: Phone: .3 os- .7090- 4Q tS
mar: Phone:
Owner & option to purchase .- Contrast to purchase COPY attach*d ?'^_
i! applicant is not weer, is letter of authority from owner attached? ._.r
LY.C3AL czsmipTZox of PRonny covERLo BY AppLSCATION
Lott s 1
Block -7_ subdiVision d /1"
Netas and Sounds:
APPLICATION is Oil. MY WADE FOR THE FOLLOWING:
,t4 variance _- Special Use Rezoning _..... Ttixt Amendment to L C
Home occupational License _ m Approval PUB Mai= Change
Briefly explain application and cite specific Code sections:
( 7 ,Q �
U
SUMT= KhTELU=
X Latter of intent ^ Hardship statement Reasons tar chAngs
4 Proof of ownership _ Power of attOrney „_.. Contract to Qtsrrba6e i
iC Site plan (7 copies► Required fee(al
current survey ..r..
:'he undersigned has read this completed application and,rapresents the
?ntorsation and all s=aittnd materials furnisned are true and cc=ct
to the best of the applicant s ynowledga and bell$!.
OCT .f� / .tLtd/ltJ D lrv�2
�atn Applicant's signature and title
Upon receipt. applications and all sutmitted materials will be reviewed for
cOSpiiance with city Codes and other applicable requlations. lilac!.
found not in compliance will be rejected and rnturnnd to tin aP4
OA'L"E PO tiEAMU
ADVI= D? AMMZ
.ATL FILED
=Oass%ox
OTm 111ro
ACCLPTLB RL7zz:rZu
?BTITIION R
l 0
y►�'r.; MO\N . - :UDEN, EGRNET- . ". i nl"i: = ;;�.
. Aj • ,VI V
Vat am
w
rA
to 0 to
IA IA
y U1 4, W
z o =
N
VI ~ ,
1
N f 0 • AO
3 a.o
• I
.b
tb
v M
M •�+f... �� 7• ` .A C O
in
1
y
w C �' b
CVAIIIM KtI CUTS (30 -4t)—* n A \ �• •I— r
AAItMDtV PLAT S = L4
r �
M
C
• w w
y �
to ` io
•
I I w
i i v I z I c
hat
LA
Na
f� i 1, • �1 �N •� .• � �ti Mw.
� � "tie •w ° • i
v
t .r • O !p + • to z a
w (
y, t
sw um C7 C _
I N
• � / � '" I I I ° p � i " ` . it — ` 1 { � � {" ` � � '
—7—r 04 416 LARt 10•!4 t,.00R3 1 -4
C3TaTi3 Za 0. a voly I hi re y�
nl • i i! ��+ A u 17.t4�tb ,:
ram
Y f1 { I •� I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE :•1AYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH t1IAt4I , FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY :•TANAGER TO EXECUTE A SIX
MONTHS' LEASE RENEWAL FOR A STORAGE FACILITY
FOR THE ;vAREHOUSING OF 7EHICLES H.ELD =-Y THE
POLICE DEPART14ENT PURSUANT 170 THE FLORIDA
CONTRABAND FORFEITURE ACT; - UTHORIZI,IG AN
EXPENDITURE NOT TO EXCEED $4,017.00 FOR SIX
MONTHS AND NOT TO EXCEED $669.50 FOR EACH
140NTHLY EXTENSION AND CHARGING THE
DISBURSEMENT TO ACCOUNT NO. 08- 1910 -4400
"FORFEITURE FUND - RENTALS AND LEASES."
WHEREAS, the Police Department has with'certain regularity
come into temporary possession of motor vehicles pursuant to the
Florida forfeiture Contraband Act; and
WHEREAS, court decisions have held those in such temporary
possession responsible for damage to the vehicle in the event of
their return to the titled owner; and
WHEREAS, in the event of a forfeiture, the vehicle's value to
the Police Department likewise depends upon its good condition; and
WHEREAS, therefore, the Police Department of South Miami
wishes to renew its lease on warehouse space to provide for the
safeguarding of vehicles held by the Police.Department pursuant to
the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act; and
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has previously certified the
requested disbursements comply with the provisions of Florida
Statute 932.704 (3);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 14AYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South
:Miami, Florida do hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a
.ease renewal for the storage of motor vehicles held by the South
Miami Police Department pursuant to the Florida Contraband
Forfeiture Act for a sum not to exceed $4,017.00 for a six months'
(j -
, 4
lease $669.50 cer .-;onth ) -,:or ::':e zericd '.larch 1, 1-994 _hrcuah
August _ , '994, with an oction zo = ent zhe oremises on a :font .o
:month casis after - _uaust _ _ , X994 , .or :o to 3n ddi tional six
month ceriod.
Section 2. That the disbursement be charged to account no.
08 -1910 -4400 "Forfeiture Fund - Rentals and Leases."
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of February, 1994
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
1p
I4 Rv MG-1
EXTENSION Cr LEASE .GREE :iE :iT
AGREEMENT made and entered Into this :iav of February, 1994
by and between SHOPCEN II INVESTMENTS, ".ereinafter referred to as
'IT_essor" and CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, ereinaf -ar ._3ferred to as
'IT essee; "
RECITALS:
1. The parties hereby are bound ';v that certain Business
Lease dated March 31, 1993, for the premises commonly known as 4818
Southwest 75 Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida 33155.
2. The parties desire to enter into a new agreement extending
the term and modifying certain provisions of the aforementioned
Lease.
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. That the Lease shall be extended from March 1, 1994
through August 31, 1994. The total rental for the premises shall
be Four Thousand Seventeen and 00 /100 Dollars'($ 4,017.00), payable
monthly .at the rate of Six Hundred Sixty Nine and 50/100 Dollars
($ 669.50).
2. The Lessee shall not pay unto the Lessor any additional
security deposit for the faithful performance by the Lessee of all
the terms and conditions of said Lease.
3. The Lessee agrees to pay a flat $ 20.00 per month charge
for water and sewer consumption. Said charge is subject to change
and reevaluation periodically..
4. This Lease may be renewed at the identical monthly rate
for successive one month periods until February 28, 1995, by notice
30 days prior to termination.
All other provisions of the Lease are incorporated herein and
are modified hereby to conform herewith, but in all other respects,
are to be and shall continue in full force and effect..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed the foregoing
Extension of Lease agreement the day and year first above written.
WITNESSETH:
9
Lessor: SHOPCEN II INVESTMENTS
Bv:
Jack Calderon, President
Gibraltar Realty & Management,
Exclusive Leasing Agent for
SHOPCEN II INVESTMENTS
Lessee: CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
By:
William F. Hampton
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF 7HE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION CF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, yUTHORIZING THE CITY
:,I NAGER 70 DISBURSE THE SUM OF SS, S93 .29 REPRESENTING
FEES INC ,'RRED FOR LEGAL SERVICES BY LEIBOWITZ ANTD
SPENCER REG 0RDI:;G THE CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
RENEWAL REQUEST AND FOR ADVICE REGARDING FEDERAL CABLE
= ELEVISION STATUTES ?.i'VD CHARGING THE DISBURSEMENT TO
ACCOUNT NUMBER 2100 -3420: "CONSULTANT - CABLE 77
FRANCHISE."
WHEREAS, by Resolution number 57 -93 -9811 passed April
27, _993 the City Commission authorized the City Administration
:o enter into a contract with the law firm of LEIBOWITZ and
SPENCER as Special Counsel regarding Cable Television and the
Franchise Renewal Request; and
WHEREAS, the City has now received invoices for legal
services rendered pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution in the
amount of $5,893.39.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Manager be, and hereby is,
authorized to.disburse the sum of $5,893.39 to LEIBOWITZ and
SPENCER for legal services rendered regarding the City's Cable
Television Franchise Renewal Request.
Section 2. That the disbursement be charged to account
number 2100 -3420: "Consultant -Cable TV Franchise."
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of February, 1994
ATTEST:
My Clerk
READ AND :APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTORNEY
ri
APPROVED:
MAYOR
0
ri
L.EIBO ITZ & _-�.SSOCI RTES. :-'. --%.
. _-- -- - -` BOwl-:
SUITE 145C
- "'�� -- - -- S -r
SJNBANM INTEANATIONA.^,EN'TE=
C'._ SO..- -EAST -..I =- AVEtiu=
- --r RIGA 33.2.. _
- .-BONE •,3^ - -- __-
rr. rrr rr.
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
5130 SUNSET DRIVE
SOUTH MIAMI FL 33143
Attn: WILLIAM HAMPTON
CABLE TELEVISION
M�
12199
CITY MpNp Ws OFFICE
Page: 1
01/10/94
Account No: 7404 -00M
Statement No: 47
11/2'!9,3 Study letter to Cathy Christensen re:cable ra-e
complaint; Draft letter to Cathy Christensen re:
cable satellite's offer of service.contracts -o
subscribers
Customer service ordinance Conference with ice
Belisle Study letter from Cathy Christensen re:
cable satellite affiliates; Study file on rat=
regulation; Conference with Scott Lazar
Customer service ordinance
12/C2/93 Draft letter to Cathy Christen; Telephone
conference with Elba re:certification to reaulate
rates; Study rate file; Conference with Scot-
_czar; Telephone conferences with insurance
department re:service contract and Cathy Peel
_elephone conference with Cathy Peel
. nference with _oe Belisle Telephone conference
::ith ;dilliam Hampton re:upcoming city council
meeting and with Florida Bar; Study letter = _.....
Cathy Christensen
; ;estlaw research; Assist Matt Leibowitz and :3e
Belisle in preparation for meeting Attend
Hours
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
CABLE TELEVISION
?aae: 2
,1/10/94
Account No: 7:04 -OOM
Statemen _ '11.1c: 47
Hours
commission meeting; Conference with Joe Belisle
and prepare Telephone conference with Cathy
Christensen; Prepare for city council meeting;
Telephone conference with Bill Hampton;
Conference with Matt Leibowitz; Attend city
council meeting
12/03/93 Telephone conference with Bill Hampton;
Conference. with Joe Belisle
12/14/93 Conference with Joe Belisle re:Cathy's letter and
responses Review letter from Cathy Christensen;
Conference with Matt Leibowitz re:Cathy
- Christensen letters
12/16/93 Telephone conferences with Bill Hampton, Mavor
McCann and Joe Belisle Telephone conference with
William Hampton and Mayor McCann re:CATV
12/17/93 Conference with Joe Belilse; Study letter Review
ordinances
1.2/19/93 Review stations regulating public utilities and
small system exemption and customer service
preemption
12/20/93 Telephone conferences with Cathy Christensen and
Joe Belisle Telephone conference with Bob
Prentice at insurance commissioner's office and
with Larry Walk at the FCC re:joint certification
and sharing of rate regulation costs; Draft
response to cable satellite memorandum
1 2;21/93 Investigate utility late-charge billing Prepare
for and attend South Miami Commission meeting;
Telephone conference with Cathy Christensen Draft
memorandum responding to Cathy Christensen'_
memorandum; Conference with Matt Leibowitz;
Telephone conference with Larry Walk confirming
FCC position on joint certification; Prepare for
city counsel meeting; Review comments toCathv
Christensen on ordinances; Attend meeting on +
customer service ordinance and late fee charaes
1--.'22/92 review and revise South _•Iiawi customer standard
crdinance Telephone conference with Neil Carver
y 1 C
SOUTH MIAMI, CITY OF
CABLE TELEVISION
Attorney
Pane 3
01/10/94
Account No:' 7404 -001.1
Telephone conference with Mayor Cathy McCann
Telephone conference with Bill Hampton
For Current Services-Rendered 45.50 5806.10
Matthew L. Leibowitz
:Matthew L. Leibowitz
Tosenh A. Belisle
=1a L. Feld
Scott A. Lazar
Long Distance Calls
Delivery /Express
Telecopying
Photocopying
Recapitulation
Hours
- - - --
Hourly Rate
- - - --
Total
2.80
----- -
0.00
- - - --
$ 0.00
9.10
$250.00
$2,275.00
15.47
$190.00
$2,939.30
1.40
$115.00
161.00
3.92
$110.00
431.20
Total Expenses Thru 12/25/93
Total Current Work
Balance Due
0.94
22.20
48 . C0
15.75
86.c9
5893.__
$x,093._9
f , 7
RESOLU—_ _='1 NO.
R_ESOLUTICN CF THE MAYOR AND C =: = C^.)MMISSION
OF THE CITY SOUTH MIAMI. 7TCRIDA, !UTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO DISBURSE ___ SUM OF $12,588.7_
REPRESENTING FEES INCURRED FOR LEGAL SERVICES SY
GREGORY BORGCGNONI OF RUDEN, 3A�1ETT ET AL,
REGARDING THE SAKERY CENTER, $12,378.75 AND IN THE
CASE OF STEIGLITZ VS. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, $210.00
AND CHARGING THE DISBURSEMENT -0 ACCOUNT NUMBER
2100 -4910; "COMPREHENSIVE PLANS - SPECIAL ATTORNEY."
WHEREAS, by Resolution number 7_ -90 -9102 passed
May 22, 1990, the City Commission authorized the employment of
Gregory BORGOGNONI of RUDEN, 3ARNETT, et al; and
WHEREAS, the City has now received invoices for
legal services rendered'pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution
regarding the Bakery Centre in the amount of $12,378.75 and in
the case of STEIGLITZ vs. city of South Miami, $210.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND
CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City. Manager be, and hereby is,
authorized to disburse the sum of $12,588.75 to Gregory
BORGOGNONI of RUDEN, BARNETT, et al for legal services rendered
regarding the Bakery Centre for $12,378.75 and in the case of
STEIGLITZ vs. City of South Miami for $210.00.
Section 2. That the disbursement be charged to
account _number 2100 -4910: "Comprehensive Plan - Special
Attornev."
oog,
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of February,
Approved:
:=EST: MAYOR
CITY CLERK
EF.D AND iPPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
1
Client No. CI18371
FEDERAL IN 59- 1307357
RUDEN, BARNETT, ,,- 1cCL0SKY, SNAITH. SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.
3.17T0R`EYS AT -zA%
S;ST BR0WARD BOLLEV XRD
ZOST OFFICE BOX 11390
=ORT _ALDERDALE, F LGRIDA 3330:
3051 :6a -b�n0
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
City Hall
6130 Sunset Drive
Miami, Florida 33143
File No. ' 5
adv. Steiglitz.
January 10, 1994
Invoice No. 245429
FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH
10/18/93 G. Borgognoni 1.2 210.00
Telephone conference with B. Steiglitz;
review order.
TOTAL HOURS 1.2
TOTAL FOR SERVICES $210.00
TOTAL $210.00
T61'I - V �+• 14,
�-`
c�M�aa,�t:s ar�ce�
-HIS LAW FIRM HAS A LATE CHARGE POLICY SIMILAR TO MOST COMMERCIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS. YOU MAY AVOID IMPOSITION OF THIS LATE CHARGE BY PAYING YOUR
11VOICE WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE L %TE CHARGE IS 11 OF THE UNPAID BALANCE PER MONTH.
C '► 4
Client No. CI18371
FEDERAL IN 59- 1307357
RUDEN, BARNETT, ,'AcCLOSKY, SPAITH. SCHUSTER & RUSSELL. P.A.
\TTORNEYS \i LAW
130 EAST BROWARD BOULEVARD
POST OFFICE BOX 19(10
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 3310_
305) i 64th )3
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
City Hall
6130 Sunset Drive
Miami, Florida 33143
File No. 6
B?kery Center.
January 10, 1994
Invoice No. 245430
FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH
10/04/93 G. Borgognoni 5.2 910.00. Telephone conference with W. Hampton;
research regarding Hometown District
ordinance; review correspondence;
prepare for meeting.
10/05/93 G. Borgognoni 3.5 612.50 Telephone conference with W. Hampton;
prepare for and attend meeting.
10/06/93 G. Borgognoni 1.6 280.00 Review R. Swarthout's materials;
conference with R. Swarthout;
conference with V. Dover.
10/08/93 G. Borgognoni 4.2 735.00• Conference with W. Hampton regarding
memo; revise same.
10/14/93 G. Borgognoni 7.0 1,225.00• Prepare City's reponse to order to
show cause; research; revise memo;
conference with S. Poole.
10/15/93 G. Borgognoni 5.2 910.00 ., Prepare Memo to W. Hampton regarding
Hometown District; numerous telephone
conferences; research regarding all
legal issues; conferences with
Department of Community Affairs.
10/18/93 G. Borgognoni .6 105.00' Telephone conference with Mayor.
McCann;. revise.memo.
10/19/93 G. Borgognoni 10.5 1,837.50 /Numerous telephone conferences
including with.Department of Community
Affairs; review letters; review faxes
from DCA; prepare for and attend
meeting at South Miami.
10/20/93 G. Borgognoni 2.2 385.00-"Telephone conference with S. Lerner
and V. Settles; prepare letter
regarding schedule; review V. Settles
,letter; review file.
10/22/93 G. Borgognoni 2.3 402.50) Prepare letter to V. Settles;
telephone conference with V. Settles;
conference with S. Lerner.
10/26/93 G. Borgognoni 2.0 350.00, Work on memorandum.
11/01/93 G. Borgognoni 2.0 350.00- Prepare memo.
THIS LAW FIRM HAS A LATE CHARGE POLICY SIMILAR TO MOST COMMERCIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS. YOU MAY AVOID IMPOSITION OF THIS LATE CHARGE BY PAYING YOUR
1VOICE WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE LATE CHARGE IS 1 OF - *-E UNPAID BALANCE PER MONTH.
A •� V
Client No. CI18371
FEDERAL ION 59.1307357
RUDEN, BARNETT, NkCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER �, RUSSELL, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
:00 EAST BROWARD BOULEX'4RO
POST OFFICE BOX tn00
FORT LAUDERDALE. FLORIDA :: 3
3051 i 6a•bbo0
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
Page 2
January 10, 1994
Bakery Center
11/04/93
G.
Borgognoni
1.2 210.00
-/Telephone conference with W. Mackey
regarding.stay; numerous telephone
conferences with DCA regarding same.
11/08/93
G.
Borgognoni
.4 70.00
Telephone conference with Mayor McCann
and W. Hampton.
11/09/93
G.
Borgognoni
1.2 210.00
Telephone conference with Mayor
McCann; work on memo.
11/10/93
G.
Borgognoni
1.2 210.00
i Conferencer with J. Tuesdell regarding
time deadlines; conference with other
DCA personnel.
11/11/93
G.
Borgognoni
4.9 857.50
-/Review V. Settles's memo; read cases;
begin drafting response.
11/17/93
G.
Borgognoni
1.7 297.50'
Research and draft response.
11/19/93
K.
Klein
.3 40.50
Conference with Gregory Borgognoni.
11/19/93
G.
Borgognoni
8.2 1,435.00
Prepare and revise memo of law for
hearing officer.
11/30/93
G.
Borgognoni
3.5 612.50
Review file; prepare for hearing;
telephone conference with T. Arline;
telephone conference with W. Mackey,
D. Mimms; telephone conference with W.
Hampton.
TOTAL HOURS 68.9
TOTAL FOR SERVICES $12,045.50
PLEASE SEE NEXT PAGE FOR TOTAL AMOUNT DUE.
J
THIS LAW FIRM HAS A LATE CHARGE POLICY SIMILAR TO .LOST COMMERCIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS. YOU MAY AVOID IMPOSITION OF THIS LATE CHARGE BY PAYING YOUR
�IVOICE WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE LATE CHARGE IS 1 O1a OF --'-E UNPAID BALANCE PER MONTH.