Planning Board Staff Report




Miami Shores Village Town Hall  Council Chambers  10050 NE 2nd Avenue  Miami Shores

Hearing Date

March 24, 2011

Meeting Time

7:00 P.M.

File Number


Folio Number



Yiannis & Veronica Dumas





Property Address

9650 N Bayshore Drive

Legal Description

MIAMI SHORES SEC 3 PB 10-37 PLOT 1 BLK 83 PLOT SIZE 77.080 X 200 OR 18519-2768 03 1999 1 COC 26108-1838 12 2007 1 OR 26108-1837 1207 01

Property Size-Sq Ft


Building Adjusted Sq Ft


Flood Zone

AE 10 and VE




Future Land Use Designation

Single Family Residential

Existing Use

One-family dwelling

Comprehensive Plan Consistency


Existing Structure

1-story; 3 bed/3 bath

Year Built




Special Approvals, Sections 600; Sec. 523 & Sec. 523.1:

Site Plan Approval, Sec. 604; Sec. 605: Construction, pool deck.

Action Required

Approve, Approve with Conditions, or Deny the application

Other Required Approvals

Village Building Permits


Staff Report

David A. Dacquisto AICP, Director, Planning and Zoning

Report Date

April 8, 2011





The applicant is applying for site plan approval for a pool deck extension.


A pool deck does not generally require site plan approval by the village.  The applicant is required to meet setback and building requirements and the building permit is administratively approved if the proposed deck meets code requirements.


Exhibits 1 through 12 provide the history of the pool and deck.


The pool deck is was constructed approximately 9.3 feet from the southerly side plot line and the applicant is requesting that the Planning Board approve a site plan for a pool deck 9.3 feet from the southerly site plot line.


The applicant applied for a building permit December 29, 2009 to replace pavers on an existing pool deck and to expand the existing deck.  The site plan submitted with the building permit application showed the existing pool deck was 10 feet from the southerly side plot line and proposed an extension that was located 10.9 feet from the southerly side plot line.  Interestingly the proposed deck extension was not going to be an extension of the existing southerly building line of the existing deck.  The mathematics of the setbacks proposed would have resulted in an extension stepped back approximately 1 foot from the existing pool deck.  The deck as proposed met setback requirements and planning staff approved the building permit.


The builder did not call for a foundation inspection as required by the Florida Building Code.  Had the builder called as required, the village building official would have identified the setback issue at that time and halted construction.


When the work was completed the final survey showed that the pool deck was located approximately 9.7 feet from the southerly plot line at the residence and 9.3 feet from the southerly side plot line at the westerly end of the pool deck, not 10.9 feet as shown on the building plans.   Staff failed the final survey based on failure to comply with setbacks.


Subsequently the applicant revised the building permit and requested approval for a pool deck 9.3 feet from the southerly side plot line.  Planning staff could not approve the plans as the deck did not comply with 10 foot side yard setback requirement.


The Exhibits show that a 10 foot side yard setback was consistently required by the village for the pool deck.


Mr. Berg approved the installation of the original pool deck as shown on a survey submitted with the building permit on December 8, 2004 with the notation that a 10 foot side yard setback was required as shown on the plans submitted.  See Exhibit 1 and 2.


The house is shown on the plans as 11.6 feet from the side plot line and the proposed pool deck is located 1.5 feet closer to the side yard plot line than the residence resulting in a pool deck located 10 feet from the southerly side plot line.


The applicant has a survey from 2007.  It shows a distance of 10.97 feet to the house and appears to have been measured from the wall not property line.  The latest survey from the applicant shows the house 11.2 feet from the property line.  This contrasts from the 11.6 inch separation distance between the house and property line shown on the surveys submitted with the original deck building permits.


The existing deck is located where it is.  It does not meet the 10 foot side yard setback required on the original approvals.  That said, the extension if constructed as stated on the building permit of December 29, 2009 would have met the side yard setback requirement.


The property owners are now requesting site plan approval to keep the full patio.


Variances are generally used to seek setback relief from the provisions of the zoning code.




Staff reviewed the applicants points submitted in support of their request


Point 1.            Setbacks and open space requirements are also put in place to provide areas for drainage and water infiltration and to prevent runoff into neighboring properties or public property.


Point 3.            The village approved 1 inch pavers on the existing deck December, 8, 2008.  The survey/site plan submitted at the time identified the existing deck as located 10 feet from the southerly side plot line.  The deck and approval to place pavers on the deck were consistent with the zoning code based on the site plan identifying the deck location 10 feet from the southerly side plot line.


Point 5.            The applicant has applied for site plan approval for the pool deck.  Relief from setbacks is generally through a variance request.


Point 6.            Ground level decks are not prohibited in a flood plane.  The flood plain extends significantly beyond bay front properties.  Staff is not familiar with the applicants situation with DERM.  The original driveway was located 12 feet from the northerly plot line and the septic system was located in the open space between the side plot line and the driveway.  At some point the property owner of the time constructed a driveway over the septic system.  There is no permit on file for the driveway.  In 2004 the property owners of the time applied for a building permit to repave the driveway.  The application was granted subject to the property owner cutting back the driveway to leave not less than 10 feet between the driveway and side plot line.  Staff has no information regarding the present septic system or present situation regarding the driveway.


Point 9.            Planning and Building Department staff rely on the accuracy of information provided with building permits to evaluate and approve or deny building permit applications.  It is up to the applicant to provide complete and accurate information and to construct improvements as proposed and approved by staff.


The proposal is not consistent with the technical provisions of the Zoning Code.




Planning and Zoning staff recommends DENIAL of the site plan with a finding that it is not consistent with the technical provisions of the Code.


To approve the site plan, Planning Board must make a finding that the proposed improvements are harmonious with the community, as required in Section 523 of the Code and, in that regard, may add further conditions or delete or modify staff recommended conditions, deny the application, or continue the item for future consideration.  Should the board find that the applicant merits approval, staff recommends that the following conditions apply:


1)      Applicant to secure necessary DERM or Department of Health approval for the septic system prior to the issuance of a village building permit

2)      Applicant to obtain all required building permits for work already begun or completed.

3)      Applicant to obtain all required building permits.

4)      Applicant to meet all applicable building, zoning and other code provisions at the time of building permitting.