PLEASE ALLOW THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO CITY OF MIAMI ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW THE AFTER THE FACT CONSTUCTION WITH 2.5 FEET WEST SIDE (LEFT) SETBACK EXHISTING SINCE YEAR 1982-1983 WHERE 5 FEET WAS PERMITED BY 9500 ZONING CODE PASSED IN SEPTEMBER 1982 AND AMENDED 86 TIMES FROM 1982-1989. 

1.      The location of the original building constructed in 1938 was located about 9 feet from the east property line.  The west side of the building was located 12.5 feet from the property line.  Zoning ordinance 9500 adopted in September 1982 and amended several times until 1985 makes it impossible for property owners to use the extra 4+ feet of land on the east side or the extra 7+ feet of the west side to expand the property without requiring a demolition of more than 50% of the property.  Therefore, the circumstances that exist are peculiar to the building in the same zoning district and this is a valid reason for granting a variance. Also, while at the front of the property there is 2.80 feet on the west side and 9.0 feet on the east side, towards the back of the building drops on the west side of the property to 2.5 and increases to 9.52 on the east side.  An odd shape lot is a valid reason for granting a variance.

2.      Unless after-fact-variance is allowable, the homestead property will be required to demolish the homestead property.  Correction of the setback problem on the property will result in unnecessary and undue financial hardship if asked to be demolish.  In addition, if the structure is not rebuilt due to the increased material and labor cost after the pandemic.  The property will lose value and so the neighborhood.

3.      The city of Miami have numerous properties including nearby properties located in the same street as the property that have less than the setback requirement therefore the requested variance is not a special treatment will be provided to this particular property.  In addition, under similar circumstances that exist, other petitions requesting similar adjustment in setback had been granted. Resolutions R88-190, R90-730, R91-90, R91-248, R91-596, R92-360, R93-63, R93-65, R94-592, R95-246, R95-336, R95-594, R97-764, R97-764, R98-217, R01-1238, R02-481, R07-0423.

4.      Property owner Mrs.  Pacheco is no longer able to ask the prior owner or contractor to correct the illegal construction as they are no longer alive which contributes to a financial hardship for the new owner and petitioner.

ALSO TO ALLOW THE USE OF AN ANCILLARY UNIT WHERE PRE-EXISTING LOCATION OF BUILDING DOES NOT ALLOW SPACE FOR A SECOND LAYER PARKING

1.      Allowing the use of an ancillary unit will not provide any hazard to any other property or neighbors.  Property currently have 66 feet of principal front area in the 1st layer of the lot.