HP File No. 501301-11-0@ 03:16pm Frem-Biltln
305 375 6146 T-870 P.002/D05 F-47d
BEFORE SPECIAL NIASTEIt CITY OF MIAMI BEACi~, F"LOI~cIDA
CASE NG.
[HF FILE I~1O.5013]
Frank Del Veccio, an individual
Appellant,
vs.
RECEIVE
ZEDEK. ASSOCIATES, a Florida general partnership ~~~ ~ ~ ~00~
and the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
a municipal corporation, CLEpK C3F
7NE SPECIAL MqS~
Appellees.
TRANSCRYII'T
Appellee, ZEDEK ASSOCIATES, a Florida General Partnership ("Appellee"},
files this Response in Opposition of Appellant's Motion to be excused from filing a
verbatim transcript that is subjecx of the November I3, 2007 Petition for Rehearing that
Appellant, FRANIf T)EL VECCIO ("Appellant"), filed on December 21, 2007.
Section 118-537(b)(1) of the City of Miami Beach Cvde of Ordinances ('"Code")
states the following:
The appeal shall be bused on the record of the hearing before the board, shall
not be a de novo hearing, and no new, additional testimony shall be taken.,. A, full
verbatim transcript of ail proceedings which are the subject of the appeal shat!
be pravideld by the party filing the petition; said verbatim transcripts shall
be filed no later than two weeks prior to the first scheduled public b.eari;ag to
consider the appeal_
(emphasis aldded). The Code unequivocally requires Appellant to furnish a lxanscript of
the proceeding subject of the appeal, which is the November I3, 20U7 ~Y•ehearing.
BIL7_IN SUM®ERG BAENA PRICE & Ai(k-LROD LLP
°.OO 59U~iH e~SCAYNE @OUIE VAF70, SUIT4 c~57D • MIAMI. FL94ipA 3313t•63<O
01-11-08 03:17pm Frcm-8ilz~n 30d 375 6146 T-877 P. 003/Di;5 F-d74
The Special lldaster does not have jurisdiction to waive this reyuirenaesnt. bode
Sec. 118-537(b}(2-3) enumerates the duties of the Historic Preservation $oard Special
h4asters as follows:
(2} In order to .reverse, amend; or modify any decision of the l~aard, the special
master shalt find that the board did not do one of the fallowing:
a. Provide proLeduml due process;
b. Observe essential requirements of laxv; ox
c. Base its decision upon substantial cumpetEnt evidence.
Within ten days of the date of the hearing the special master shall issue a :vritten
order setting forth his/her decision, which shall be proirnptly mailed to all parties
to the appeal.
(3) Special maLSters appoirxted to hear appeals pursuant to this subsection (b)
shall be attorneys who are members in good standing of the Florida Bar and
have expertise in the area of historic preservation. Special masters shall serve
terms of three years, provided however, that they may be removed without cause
upon a majority vote of the city co>aurnissivn. Compensation fur special masters
shall be determined by the city commission.
The Code does not confer the Special Master with tl}e power to waive mandatory
requirements of appellate procedure. It is a cleaz Code requirement; as a result only the
City Commission may change this requirement by voting to amend the Code.
Moreover, fife Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and casela~w rewire the
transcript to be pro~'ided as a part of the zecord. Fla. R. App. 1'. 9.20Q'; ~ c°r A Proa'uce
Corp, v. Superior Garlic Intl. Inc., 864 So. 2d 449,42 (F'la. 3d DCA 200.3}: Chaiken v.
Buchman, 694 So. 2d (Fla. 3d DCA. 1997); Thomas v. Perkiru, 723 Sa. Zd 293 (Fla. 3.3
DCA 1998); Mills v. Chaff-Chang, 947 So, 2d 629 (Fla. 3d 1~CA 2007). The Supreme
Courts explains the rationale of requiring a transcript:
Without a record of the trial proceedings, tke appellate court car, oat properly
rosolve tlxe und~rlarin0 fnetual iCCUec eo s~ to conclude t]LSS-t the trial court's
judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without
knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude
' Specifically, Fla. R. App. A. 9.200 clarifies the contents of the record "...the record shall consist of the
origi,ial documents, exhibits, and tzansctipts(s) pf proceedings..." Fla. lZ. App. P. 9.2Q0(axl).
MIAMI 1481600.1 7647223722
I'10/OA
-2-
~1LZIN SI„IMEi£RG k~AEhlA PRIDE S~ AXELR013 LLP
W9a ip.a Tn DIC.4AiNG Z'ALILC VARQ, SLUTC L9OO ~ MIAMI. r'LCIn1bA 39i9s-59=tn
C1-i 1-08 03:20pm Fram-Bi f z n 3C5 3'5 6146 T°871 P OC3/D05 F-d 74
The Special Master does aot have jurisdiction to waive this r~quirerner,t. Cade
Sec. 118-537(b)(~-3) Pnvmerates the duties of the Historic 1?reserratian BoKrd Special
Masters as follows:
{2) In order to reverse, amend, ar modify ~y decision of the boaY-d, the special
master shall find 1131t the board did not do one flf the follotiving:
a. Provide procedural due process;
b. Observe essential requirements of la~:rr; a,;
c. Base its decision upon suk?stantial conipetcnt evidence.
Within ten days of the date of the !gearing the special master shall issue a tivrirten
order setting forth his/her decision, which shall be pronaptiy mailed to all parties
to the appeal.
{3) Special masters appointed to hear appeals pursuant to this subsecriozr (b)
shall be attorneys who are rn~embers in goad standing of the Florida Bar and
have expertise in the area of historic preservation. Special masters shall serve
terms of three years, provided however, that they may be reinoved vvithaut cause
upon a rr,~jozity vote of the city carrtznission. Compensation for. special masters
shall be determined by the city commission.
The Code does not confer the Special Master with the power tc waive mandatary
requirements of appellate procedure. It is a clear Code requirement; as a result only the
City Commission may change this requirement by voting to amend the Code.
Moreover, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and caselaw req°.xire the
transcript to be provided as a part of the record. F Pa. R. App. P. 9.200; ~ & A Produce
Corp, v. Sraperiar Garlic Intl, Inc., 864 So. 2d 449,452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2(703); ChailGen v.
Buchman, 694 So. 2d (Fla. ,d DCA 1997); Thomas v. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 2 i3 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1998); 1Ylills v. Chaff-Chartg, 947 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d 17CA 2007j. The Supreme
Courts explains the rationale of requiring a ranscript:
Without a record of the trial proceedings; the appellate court can not Properly
resolve the underlying factual issues 5a aS to conclude that the trial court's
judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. i,7tTithout
knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasnnahiy conclude
' Specifically, Fla. R. App. P. 9.200 clarifies the contents of the record "...the record shall cons'-st ofthe
original documents, exhibits, and sranscripts(s) ofproceedings...°' Fla. R. App. P'. 9.200(a)(1).
ML4M1 1481600.1 7647223722
lrlaoa
-2-
BILZIN .t'"sUMBERG BAEN4 PRICE Se AXELROD Ll P
d.'p .'„Q UY.. pI~~.AYNG bOULr!vA4D, Eu:rt E86A NCAMI, cLGF:1 ~lA 15131.596
Oi-11-08 03:22pm From-Biiz,r: 305 3'S o146 T-872 P.D03/OGs F-474
The Special Ivlaster does not have jurisdiction to waive this requiremer~t. G'ade
Sec. 11$-537{b}(2-3) enumerates tk~e d~,~?ies of the Historic Preservation Board fipecial
Masters as tollo~~s:
{2) In order to reverse, amend, or modify any decision of the board, the special
master shall fxzid that the board did not do one of the fallowing:
a. Provide procedural due pror,.ess;
b. Ubsen•e essential requir~:ments of lawn; or
c. Base its decision upon substantial competent evidence.
Within ten days of the date of the hearing the special master sl•,all issue a written
order setting forth his,l~er decision, vwhich sb.all be promptly mailed to ail parties
to the appeal.
{3) Special masters apppinted to hear appeals pursuant to this subsectiorx (b)
shall be attorneys who are members in goad standing of the Florida Bar and
have expertise in the area of historic preservation. Special masters shall serve
terms of three years, provided however, that they may be removed tivithout cause
upon a anajataty vote of the city coa~,rnission. Compensation for special masters
shall be determined by the city commission.
'7The Code does not confer the 5peciel Master with the power to waive rn;andAtory
requirerltents of appellate procedure. It is a clear Cade requirerneni; as a result only the
City Camrnission may change this requixernent by voting to amend *.he Co3e.
Moroover, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and caselaw re>rlZire thc
transcript to be provided a5 a part of the record. Fla. It. App. 1~. 9.20ai; ~ & ,,~ Produce
Corp, v. Szrperiar Garlic Intl, Inc., $64 So. 2d 449,452 {l:Ia. 3d DCA 2003); Chaiken v.
Buchman, 694 So. 2d (Fla. ~d DGA P997}; Thomas v..l'erkirzs, 7?3 So. 2d 2}3 {Fla. 3d
DCA 1998); Milts v. Choi-Chang, 947 So. 2d 6?9 (Fla. 3d DCA. 200?'). Tom: Suprerze
Courts explains the rationale of requirutg a transcript:
Without a record of the trial proceedings, tkte appellate court coil not properly
resolve the underlying faeiual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's
judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory, Without
knowing ite factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude
' Specifically, Fla. R. App. P. 9.200 c-arifies tha contents of the record "...the record shall consist of the
original document, exhibits, and transcripts(s) of priceedings..." Pia. R. App. P. ~.2f?0(a}(1).
NSIA,MI 1481600.: 7641223?22
lli 0/08
_~_
~ll_<.fIV ciSJMf3EFtG BAENA BRI~C' ~e AXELROC+ LLP
AC4l !.QLl'h5 ~1!CCAYNC Cl'~LiIL VAR..-l• eU~': t!' P3c7i7 MIgMi, PLb4ib,~. 993+-53AG
O1-11-08 03:Z3pm Frem-Bilz~n
305 375 6146 1-872 P 004/005 -r-474
that tYie trial judge so misconcei~~ed the lava as to require reversal, The trial court
should have been afFrmed because the record brought forward by the appellant is
inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d i ISO (~'la. 1979j ci.tirJg Soz~th
Florida Apartment Association, Inc, v. Dansyear, 347 So. 2d 7'10 (1=1a. 3d DC!~ 1977);
Strickland v. Lewis, 328 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Troutman v. CUUturF, I24 50.
2d 443 (Fla. 1929). Without the transcript of"the proceeding, the record is inadequate.
Without an adequate record, the Special Master cannot examine the factual issues
to determine whether the Historic Preservation Board properly granted the Petition for
Rehearing, As the Third District stated "[without a tran,scrxpr, appellate courts cannot
usually determine what issues were either raised or argued by the parties during a
proceeding. As such, the lack of a transcript ~aolrmally preclu+le3 appellate review."
Chaiken, 694 So. 2d at 117. (ennphasis added).
WHEREFORE, Appellee respectfully requests that the Special Master enter an
order denying Appellant's Motion to be excused frarn filing a verbatim transcript.
Respectfully submitted,
BILZIN SUMBERO BAENA PRICE
& r'~XELROD LLP
Attorneys far ZEDEK AS50GIATES
200 South $iscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500
Ivlianu, Florida 3312 ,5340
(.305) 374-7S$0 _ ..
Y~
Carter N. McDowell
l;lc~rida Bsr No. 603236
I3y: .~ ~~ d~~-, ~-.
Alexandra Y,. 17eas
Florida Bar Nu. 83??_ S I
MIA~Qt td87fio0.1 164'1223722
1,'IU/US
..Q_.
BILZIN SUMBER~'i BAENA PRICE ~i AXELRQD LLP
200 3PUTH S~$OAYN E' BQy~, ~'yAC1G. 3U~YE LJOO + M~AMf, F~ORIOA 3331.5340
J1-11-08 03:24pm Frem-8ilz~n 305 375 0146 (-87x P 005;005 F-d74
CERTIFICATE QF ST1tVICE
I HEREBY CEI{T F'S' that a true d correct copy of the foregoing has been sent
via U.S. Mail on this ___l day of ~~n.~~.~. .2008 to Frank Dsi V~ccio,
3U1 Ocean Drive, Apartment 6d4, :Miami Beach, Florida 33139 and Gory Held, esq.,
First Assistant City Attorney, City of Miruni $each, 17G0 Convention Center Drive,
Miami Beach. Floriua 33139.
~:-~~ ~
By: .. ~ __._._.~
M lAM1 1481600.1 7647223', 22
l/1010$
-4
~ILZIN SUMBEF~G ~AENA PRICE Sr AXELRdD LL.P
20p SOU"tN SiSC-'fNE @OUIEVARD, SUIfE 2500 ~ MIAM1, FLl]P.IUA 3331-5~~D