Case No. HPSM-07-00202-21-CB C3:3cpm Frem-Bilz n
3C5 375 514B T-'143 P.CC1/aC8 F-'55
I~Ef 4R1r SI'FCI.",L )47~.STEFt
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,I~L,C7RI17A
cASI~ ~~.: l~.~s~7-a~-aoz
~HPB FILE NU. SC~13~
F'rarilc Dc~l Veccia, an individual,
Appellant,
vs.
7EI1EK ASSOCIATES, a Floridlt g.~ncral partnership
and the CITY OF :MIAMI BEACH,
a mtuucipal corporation,
Appellees.
RECE~
FEB 212008
CLERK OF
THE SPECIAL MASTER
APPELLEES, ~1'viU` EI{ ASSOCIATES ;f21~SPC)NsE TD API'ELLAI~T'S r1.1'i~rFAI,
Appell~:c, Z_LI~I;1C, ASSOCIATES, a 1~1t~rida Geri~.ral Partnership ("Appellee"j,
riles ibis Response to tl,e Appeal ~,f a Peri.io':Y f'dr ~.ehearing filed. h,~. 1; E2A.NK. T}EL
VECCIO ("Appellant") on Decemk~er 21, 2aU7.
1. TILE SPECIAL MASTER LACkS JL'SXtYSI~ICATION TU C'ON5i1~E~ AN
API'ILAL OF A ItE1;lEARI'_~TG AND TIiGlC2E.>~'(?I~E PHIS APPEAL
SHOULD ICE DISMISSED.
1'he Appellee h4reby incarpoeates all of its arguments made in its Motion. tc~
Dismiss Appellan±'s Appeal and is seeking to dismiss Appellant's Appeal nn the grounds
the Special Master lacks jurisdiction to er~nsider such an appeal, hov~reve-r, in an
abundance GC eauti~an, Appellee provides the zallowing additional responses to
Appellant's argurrzerzts sot for<h in his appeal.
MIAI141 15Q3547.1 76~17223'i22
?~~ 1 i0~:
BILZIIV .~SUMBERG BACNA ~RIGE c~ a1X~LfdQf:r LL. F'
200 SrJ L:Tt-! DIg.;AVf,t °_CLILE'JAFi D, ~UIYE L50~',". • MfAMI~ 'f.QRI~A _33131.6340
02-21-08 03:36pm From-Bilz n 305 375 6146 T-145 P. 003%003 F-755
IX. APl'ELI...~N"IC'S RELIAa~CE QN I21G'I.,E Z.S40 IS MISPLACED AS IT DOES
NC}T APPLY 'I'O REHEAR.INGS.
Appellant strenuously arg~~es that Rule 1.540(b){~) of the Florida Rules of Civil
Prc~cedtare sho~sld apply in this case. Ha•Never, Appellant ignores the fact Rule
1.5=10(b)(2) does not apply tea reh:-airings. See Fla. R. ~:iv_ l~_ Y _54Q. In fact, Rule 1.~3U
applies to rehc~xrin~s. ,See Fla. R. Civ. F. 1.53.
The 1957 Authors l`;,otrunent describes the purpose of R?al;. 1.540(b) as
"subsection (b) pro~~ides fcr motion practice. to relieve a party upon such terms as are just
from final judgment, d+~cr~;~:, c}rder, or proceeding an five grounds..," Fla. £t. Civ. P.
] .540. One of the enutncratLd #ive. ~oaznds sloes iticiude "newly discovered evidence..."
Id. T'ho Rule: has a litruted purpese: to :eiieve judgment under specified ~:ircaunstaraces
set forth in tl~e Mule.
As the Supr,:ar~e Cca~rr~t has expl8ir~ed-
'~r]ule 1.54G was intended to provide relief troiri jardgments, decrees ar orders
under a limited set of eircamst~ces.' This Tale u~as not 'intended to serve as a
substitute ~fvr the new trial tracchanisrn prescribed by Rule 1..530 nor as a
substitute for appellate review of judicial error.'
Curbelrt v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1990) citing FiF~er C~ret~ Htsrnes, Inc. v.
£)avision o~"tldrninisrrataon, 315 Sa. 2d 4t3~. 493 Fla. 4th DC'A 1'75).
Thy Third District further clarified the pup-pase of Rule 1.540 and held Rule 1.540
should not be canf4rsed with a reltrvarin~:
Rule 1 S4Q is designed fc~r tl~.e correctic~rr of clerical mistakes and to provide a
inechunism far a•elie'f :ram j~ad~ment under 4:ert3in limited circun2stances
including mistake, inadvertence, Gxcusah'se neglect, newly disc~,vered evidence,
fraud ar other mise,~nduct a1~ ax`! adverse party..S'4°e~ l;'!a. R. Civ. P. 1.540. It is not
to be used, however, as a substitute for a timely appeat. See Curbelo v.
Ullrnarr. 571 Su.?d 44'~ (Fla. 1990). I~,ur~ther, the trial court cannot revisit a
7
M1AN~t 1543547.1 76472°?3722
2i 21 ?44
Bi~z~ti Sur~~sr-~~ Bp.~.rva Prate: ~ AXELF~'C)D r.~.N
~~Q ,~',c r,17N 9: $C; AYHE 9g4LE~.•AR C~ SV~TE 230C . TAlATA F. FLp R':DA 33!31-53A[~
02-71-08 03;37pm Fram-Silz~n 305 37a 5148 T-i45 P.004/008 F-755
final judgment antler fiule 1.540 to correct errors which may have been
corrected un a oration fur reheas•ing. ~4ec~ t,ci~~ery Eng'~ and Elecs. Xrtc:. v.
Francis andAssvcs„ 536 So.?d l 14~ (Fla. 2d DCA 1988),
brace v. Trace, 895 So. 2d 1?2~ (Fla 3dL~CA 2UU5). (emphasis added).
lzy this case, it is evident Appellant is seeking to t]se Rule 1.540 as yc;t another
mechanism to attack the Xlistoric Prese-vatioat Hoard File Na. SU13, ' I'lorida casclaw
clearly distiny, .~ishes Rule 1.544 and Rule 1.130. Rule 1 _SJ4 ins:.ludes its aw'it standards
for r~hca:~ing while Rule 1.540 provides relief from judgment under a limited set aC
circttrrtstanc~s establi3l~ed in the Rule, All 4f the cases Appellant cited in his Appeal
relate to the narrow purpose of Rule 1.50 and its related doctriro "newly discovered
evidence". None of Chest cases apply to rehearings and none of these cases suggest they
should be applied in a rehearing. '1"herefoxe, it is inappropriate to cansidor these cases ar
the applicability o: Mule 1541 m tlt]s appeal.
Morer~e~er, Appellant's references to the Florida Crimic~al Rules of Procedure wre
inappropriate in this context. The ar~tunent that a preliminary concurrency evaluation in
a Nistozic Preservation BCa~rd rn:~tter should be likened to DNA evidence in a n~.urder
case is absurd and should not be considered in this appeal.
' It is irnparxattt to note that the 1-iisroric Preservation t3oard affirmed its prior decision
approving I~istaric PrGSe;rvatian Filc Na. 5413 by a f}}-0 vote arz February 1;?, ~4t7$_ Ct is
likely Appellant will appeal llr~cl: order. Furth~;rmore, 1lppellant has his owl rehearing
scheduled before the 1/~istorc Preserl•atian Board nn :March 11, ?UUfi and it is likely
Appellant will that decision,
3
MlAR7I E 50374?.l 7C~472'F37~.2
2/~1;0&
~i1L~IP`! SoJM®ERC L3A~NA F9RIC='_ & P1X~LR0~ LLP
i GO uV"JTM 6~:rCi+"!`i'_' OrIULC VA.vip, SV:TE L.`.`.-~vPl Mti1M f, ~LORIs7A ."e.JI ~I-S3-r0
02-21-Ofi 03:38pm Fram-Bilzin 305 375 6146 I-'45 P. 0051006 F-i55
IYI. T'1•IE>[I.E YS NO 12E~UIREMEN'I' IN T;I~E ;vI)IA.:vII i3EAC~i C(}I)E
AS TO WHEN ]~VZ~IENCE fU IiE CONSIDERED IN REHEARINGi
'V'AS CItEATEI~.
As explained above, Appeliazat's reliance on tl~e );lorida Ttal~s of Civil Procedure is
rraisplaced as he relies on judici2l rules which do not apply to the case at hand: rehearing,.
.Appellant further argues that tl?e Miami Beach Code of CJrdinances ("Cane") requires the
evidence presented at the rehearing rnust have been in existence at the tune the original
decision was made. The Code contains no such requirement.
Cody Sec. 113-5_~ % states two grounds to permit the granting of a rehearinb which
could apply to this case: (a) therL is rte`~vl)' discovered e~~idenCe which is likely to be
relevant to the decision of the board ar (b)thc board has overlooled or failed to consider
something which renders the decision issued erroneous. In relation to la}, the codo
requires that then ev~ident;e be (1) newly discovered and {2} likcl1r to be relevant to tha
Board. "Che Code plainly does not require when tho evidence had to be in existence, just
that it be "newly discov~rcd" and '°likely to be relevant." Further, the otl>er ground for
granting a rehearing req>..lires that the bcaard (1 i overlooked Qr failed (?) ro consider
"something" and (3 }which rel~ders the Board's decision erroneeaus- similar to (a), ?herz is
no codified requirement as to when this "something" has tc~ have been ir. existence.
.3ppelaarit is not entitled to read hidden meanings into the Code ~~~here the language is
cieaLr as to there is rla requirement tvlier,l evidence or "sanaething" has to be ira existence.
4
?~•ItAMI 15035?.1 ?64?'~~?~72_?
?i? ~ielt~
E3iL11N SUMi:~~G l3aF_tvA C~RIC'E & Ax~Ll~no LE_p
20C ShI:YH ~',SCAVr.F 0^"'~.^LG'JAR C,, ~: .117E 2SDP MYAMi, F~,pRY3A aj131-b 3`~P
02-21°OB 03:38pm Frain-8111 n 305 375 6146 T-145 P.006/008 F-755
IV. "K'HF SP)c,CIAL MASTER LA+C'KS JURIS)D1«TION Ti O COI\SIiDER TIiIE
REIJ.EVANCI~ QF TIDE 1P~.LIMINA,RY CQ~NCU]ft1~,ENCY
CCRTII! KATE.
Sec. 122-4 (1) of Chapter 1?2, CaneLUrez~cy :vl~~nnagement, of the Code e~stablisites
the requireYnents for cottcurrency. The preliminary cancurrency determination is not a
requirement of the Historic 1'resea nation Bo~:rd. See Code Sec, 11$-5Q1 c: t. seq. In fact,
Concurrency Maztagen~ent has its o~~.n set of rules and reaulations,~ and even its own
ciuasi-judicial appellate body; the Concurreney Appeal Cammittee, v+fhich is separate and
apart from th4 Historic Preservation Board regulations. C'r,apter 122 and its associated
doctunents include standards for issuing preliminary eoncurrenry determinations.
R2oreover, the Code: creates unique appeal pre7visions which apply onl ~ to preliminary
conctu-rency 4eternzinatians and establishes a ~:oncurrency Appeal Camrxittee to hear
appeals. "Che Histaric Preservation Board does not have jLtrisdtcnon to consider or
evaluate preliminary concurren,cy determinations as that power is not an enumerated
powez under the intent, scope, purpose, cr policies set forth in the Code far t?~e Historic
1>reservaticn Board. ``ee Code Sec. 11~-SOl et. s,sq and that power it singularly delegated
to the ConcLUZency Appeal Cornrnitt+re. Therefore, it is inapprapriate for the Special
~Iaste: to cc~nside~r the preliminary coneut~rency dctertxtination as part of this appeal; that
zxtatter has been separately addressed and decided, as the Cnde requires, by the
Conctu.-rency Appeal ~Coznmittce.
a Appellant is welt acquainted with Chapter 122 as he filed an appeal to the Concurrezlcy
Appeal Con-in2ittee regarding the very same preliminary concurrency certificate at issue
in this appeal. The ConcwYency Appeal Corrrmittee granted Appellant's appeal on
Octobez ?9, 2007.
5
;v]1n1v11 1503517.] 76~17L-?3722
Z~~1lUS E31L21h.I SUMBERG B!•.~hJ6~. PRICE ~ic P.X~LRQC LLFs
2~~0 SC': Tr^r ~+r.3r=f+"hE BOUSC VgGe3, SU~~TE 2:00 rMr-+'~r~., =LOF;C?h 53~3i-534G
~2-21-08 03:39pm Frc~-Bilz~n 305 375 o14fl T-'~45 ?.6~~/JOB F°'S8
Vv'HERI;I 01~, the Appellee respectfully rLquests that Appellant's Appeal
be dismissed or denied for the reasons set forth in this Response.
Respectft,-lly suUrnitted,
BILZIN SUNIBI_.I2Cs BALiVA 1'R1CE
& ,4XELRQD LLP
A>rtorneys for ZEDLZ~ ASSO~;IA"1"E5
'?00 Soud~ Biscayne $oX.tlevard, Suite 2St~Lti
Miami, I'lorida ~ ]21-530
(305) 374-~ ,,
By, a ~ -~-
Carter `v. 1i~tcDawell
Florida Bar No. 64336
Alexandra . D~aS
Florida k~ar No. S 2251
Ml,S1~11 15C3547.t 7647?2"722
Z/"1110$ .^~
DIL2'IN `Ji1M6ERCa B.t~EN{4 PRICE Sr AXELROU LLP
,^~. aSO •'~o uTry ni3L.avrvE ia3ui£v.e.RO, 6uiTE 2504 MlArh i, F~3RIpA 3313 ~-G 3+iJ
02-21-08 03:40pm Fram-Silz n 305 376 6148 T-145 P. 008/008 F-755
CER'Y`YIFXCATE 1]F SE:ttS'Y~L
I HEREBY CEiZ~`SrY that a true ~ correct copy of th;, i`aregc~ing has been sent
via IJ.S. Mail orz this ~•~~. day of _ _ , ~ODfi to Frank Del L'eccio,
301 Ocean Drive, Apartment 6CJ4, 'V;iiami Beach, Fio 'da 3313 and Gary Held, Bscl.,
first Assistant City hlttarney, City of Miami Beach, 17`~~i Canventiotl Center Drive,
Miami Bcaeh,l~lorida 33139.
J -~ _
7
M1f~N1I I5G354?, l 7647a~3?32
Z/Z 11G8 /~
E31LZI1J S!JM$~RG BAENA PRICE & ISXELF~':,~ !_Lp
400 iG IiTM 315CA7NE 9GU~E•i.aR O, SUITE 2'C,OO M~At.~l, ~~Q IRIG.1 .•r .~'.3i-a341]