Loading...
DRB Appeal - 42 Collins AveGolden Dreams Condominium Association, Inc. 65 Washington Avenue ~ ~, Miami Beach, Florida 33139 - ~; ~, o "~1 December 2, 2008 r ~ ~' N 7`: "~. City Clerk ~_- .~: City of Miami Beach °' :~' 1700 Convention Center Drive 4 ~ Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Re: Appeal of Design Review Board decision regarding 42 Collins Avenue, File no. 21790. Dear Mr. Clerk: Please consider this letter to be our appeal of the decision of the Design Review Board ("DRB") in the above referenced matter. In so appealing we state as follows: 1. This appeal is being brought in accordance with section 118- 262 of the Citys Land Development Regulations (`LDRs"). 2. Golden Dreams Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Golden Dreams") is an affected person and has standing to file this appeal because it lies within the mailed notice area for this matter and because a representative of the Association (and unit owner) provided testimony in this matter before the DRB. 3. Golden Dreams Condominium is a 24 unit, 2-story, walk-up, open courtyard type building that lies immediately to the west of 42 Collins Avenue, directly across an alley. 4. This appeal is being brought based on Golden Dreams being denied procedural due process and because the DRB did not base its decision on substantial competent evidence. 5. Golden Dreams is filing this appeal because it did not have notice of, and had no opportunity to comment on, the emergency standby generator that is intended to be a part of the 42 Collins Avenue project. Golden Dreams is concerned about the exhaust gas and noise that will be generated into the alley that is shared by 42 Collins Avenue and Golden Dreams. 6. The Golden Dreams building is glazed with jalousie windows which do not keep noise or significant smells from penetrating the units. At such time as electrical power in the area may be lost (due to a hurricane, etc.), the unit owners would be forced to resort to leaving the windows open for needed ventilation. 7. With a generator running 24 hours a day exhausting both fumes and noise in a significant-y enclosed alley after an event such as a hurricane, the residents of Golden Dreams will suffer from the effects of the noise and fumes without respite. 8. Even under normal circumstances. the generator will likely have to be "exercised" at least weekly for maintenance purposes--imposing noise and fumes on Golden Dreams residents at those times. 9. The plans submitted for DRB consideration did not illustrate the emergency standby generator. At the initial DRB hearing in this matter, Golden Dreams appeared at the hearing to voice its concerns with the project. It did not mention the generator because the applicant's submitted plans did not include a generator. Because Golden Dreams felt that the board and staff significantly addressed its concerns at the first DRB meeting, it did not appear at the continuation hearing. The plans submitted for the continuation hearing did not illustrate or otherwise mention the generator. 10. But for a DRB board member asking the applicant if there was to be a generator in the project during board discussion after the public hearing was closed (during the continuation hearing), and but for a Golden Dreams unit owner watching the televised hearing, Golden Dreams would still not be aware that a generator was planned for the project-- a generator intended to exhaust into the alley adjacent to Golden Dreams condominium. 11. The generator implicates section 118-251(6) and (11) of the City's design review criteria. 12. Because the applicant did not illustrate the generator in the submitted application plans, Golden Dreams was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard on this issue-- thereby denying Golden Dreams procedural due process. 13. Because the issue of the generator did not even come up for discussion until late in the continuation hearing, not even allowing for staff analysis, and because there was absolutely no evidence in the record before the DRB that the generator, as intended in the project, would conform to sections 118-251(6) and (11) of the design review criteria, the DRB could not have based its decision on substantial competent evidence regarding this issue. Because Golden Dreams, an affected person, was denied procedural due process, and because the DRB did not base its decision based on substantial competent evidence, Golden Dreams respectfully requests that the City Commission grant this appeal, and remand this matter back to the DRB where parties affected by the project's proposed generator may provide testimony to the DRB and allow the DRB to make its decision based on substantial competent evidence, including input from the affected neighbors. Respectfully, Golden Dreams Condominium Association, Inc. Isabel Fine, President cc: James Rauh, Esq.