In Attendance:

David Dacquisto, Planning and Zoning Director

Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney

Mariana Gracia, Clerk




Mr. Carlos Diaz, Mr. John Busta, Mr. David Snow, Ms. Irene Hegedus, Chairman Richard Fernandez.




Mr. Diaz visited all the new items on the agenda.

Ms. Hegedus visited all new items on the agenda.

Mr. Busta visited NE 11th Avenue & 105th Street, 746 NE 94th Street and1060 NE 105th Street.

Mr. Snow visited all new items on the agenda.

Chairman Fernandez visited item #1 on the agenda.





“Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Chairman Fernandez acknowledged that Mayor Alice Burch and Council Woman Herta Holly were present.




1) Council request: Planning board to hold a public hearing on an amendment to Chapter 20 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places to create a resident only parking district adjacent the Miami Shores Downtown.

Mr. Dacquisto gave a brief summary of the Downtown Design Manual. To allow Resident only parking in the downtown parking area. Council will decide as to the actual parking limitations as part of a resolution. Resident only parking would restrict non residents from parking on the streets or swales. You could still park in front of your neighbor’s house. It is district specific.


Chairman Fernandez made the disclosure that he was contacted by Jerry Land

Public Hearing now open.


1. Ms. Ellen Willis of 187 NE 100 Street. She lives right beside the Police Department. She asked if this amendment was literally for people parking in downtown Miami Shores?

Mr. Dacquisto responds that this draft does not identify any area. What is says is that Council has the ability to designate an area. He adds that he does not want to speak for the Council as to what their goal would be. In general, if you look at other Downtown areas, what they do is they set up an area around busy commercial areas that are residential and they issue tags, decals, hand tags to the residents in that area so that the residents can park in the streets but no one else can. The areas vary in that in some areas it might be residents parking only in the evening. Council will specify all that in the Resolution. Mr. Sarafan would like to elaborate on Mr. Dacquisto’s comments. Mr. Sarafan said that what the Board is being asked to consider is creating a framework to allow the Village Council at a future hearing by the Village Council to decide if the Council wants to do this at this particular location, or another location. Mr. Sarafan said, any hearing like that will also be a Public Hearing and you (referring to Ms. Willis) could come to that hearing as well.

2. Mr. George Mello of 1070 NE 105 Street. Mr. Mello expressed concern about rentals but supports the idea of limiting the amount of cars that can park in front of a commercial establishment. There was some confusion on his part as to the application of this Ordinance to vacation rentals.

3. Ms. Miriam Newman of 140 NE 95th Street, the third house behind Starbucks. She expressed concern about what is being proposed for parking. She is against paying a fee to get a permit to park for her visitors.

4. Patricia Gispert of 246 NE 100 Street. She conveys to the Board that she has been involved in all the meetings about the downtown development. She made the conclusion that this is probably going to pass. She does not like the part of Section F where it talks about those who live in this area that are going to have to pay. Ms. Gispert expressed that she does not like the fact that they would have to pay so that the restaurants and the business downtown get parking. The Board asked her questions. Ms. Gispert said that people prefer to park close by. She does not think that residents should have to pay for businesses to park.

5. Bod Davis of 384 NE 94 Street. Mr. Davis is against the Ordinance. To have to have a sticker to park is not right. To have to have a permit to park in front of their houses. The Board asked questions. Mr. Davis said there is no reason to have to have a permit to park in front of your home.

6. Miriam Rojas of 534 NE 95 Street. Expressed concern about restricting parking. She is for some type of signage and a sticker that is free to residents might benefit our residents. The Board asked questions.

7. Michelle of 230 NE 102 Street. She disagrees with Ms. Rojas in a couple of things. She said that she lived in Miami Beach and the whole permitting and paying for her friends to park was a problem for her. This was a constant worry for her. To have to figure out a way for her visitors to park in front of her house. She mentioned the Church and the member parking in front of her house sometimes. She has nothing against it. She is for a more vibrant downtown Miami Shores, but she would like for it to be more for local residents instead of people coming from other areas. The Board made comments.

8. Bar Joseph of 553-555 (street not given) Mr. Joseph spoke about the painting of a driveway at his house. The Board asked questions. It was concluded that his issue was not related to this public hearing.

9. Mr. Jerry Lands of 246 NE 102 Street. He is not happy about the proposal. He mentioned the 999 building. He is against paying for having his friends park in front of his house. He spoke about the parking and not needing more signs. He feels that this is just more tax on residents. He suggests that if he has to get a parking pass that all of Miami Shores should get them. He mentioned the decals that were issued some years ago and mentioned that his wife was followed home because of it and mugged. He does not want to put a decal on his car because of this. He believes the problem lies downtown not in his area. He mentioned the valet parking issue. He complained about not getting the letter to inform him. The Board asked questions. Mr. Lands responds by saying that vertical parking can be done and gave a few scenarios. He advised the Board to plan ahead.

Public Hearing is now closed.

Board discussion took place about how to proceed about the issue.

Mr. Snow Motion to table until next meeting, seconded by Mr. Diaz and to vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.


2) Staff request: Consider amending, Sec. 516 (5) Utility sheds to remove required 15 ft. setback between residence and utility sheds and board request to reduce the size of utility sheds under this section to 100 sq. ft. or less.

Mr. Dacquisto spoke about the Utility sheds and said that Staff is requesting that we eliminate the separation and allow the sheds closer to other buildings. He mentioned that the Board had requested to change the size from 120 sq. feet to 100 sq. feet. Mr. Dacquisto gave a brief explanation of the separation of Utility sheds. Staff is recommending that the separation be eliminated and the draft includes the board request to reduce the size of allowed sheds to 100 sq. feet.

Public Hearing now open.


1. Miriam Rojas of 534 NE 95 Street said that there is a disparity between the Building Department and the Planning and Zoning. She described what the disparities were in her opinion. She suggests that there needs to be some wording as to what is allowed. She went on to describe the sheds that are allowed in Miami-Dade. She mentioned she had an old shed that she would like to change. She requested an overhead light should be allowed in the shed. She does not see the need to reduce it to 100 sq. feet.

The Board discussed the changes being made. Separation distance and the size and the material as it’s has been on the code.

Public hearing is now closed.

The Board discussed the issue of having people living in these sheds. The Board discussed the issue of grandfathering of shed that have been in the property. Ms. Hegedus proposed that the shed not be allowed in front of any windows. Mr. Busta commented that reducing of the size is not something he likes. The Board asked questions of Staff. Mr. Dacquisto informed the Board as to the sheds that have been approved by the Building Department. Mr. Sarafan asked Staff if the shed would have to be approved by the Board. Mr. Dacquisto said that the applications for sheds come in to the Building Department that he looks at them individually and approves them administratively. Mr. Sarafan asked if the Building Department would approve a shed being built in front of a window. Mr. Dacquisto said not if it violates the fire code.

Motion to recommend eliminating the 15’ setback and reducing the shed size to 100 sq. feet or less, and further, no blocking of windows or doors with shed made by Ms. Hegedus. Seconded by Mr. Snow and the vote passed 4 – 1 with Mr. Busta voting against it.


3) Council request: Consider amending, Appendix A, zoning to include new or modified zoning district(s) and zoning map amendment to replace the Miami-Dade zoning designations of RU1 and RU2 for the annexed land in the north-west corner of the village.

Mr. Dacquisto gave a brief explanation of the annexing of this area about 8 years ago. The duplex zone is an issue. He created a single-family zone and a duplex zone that mimics Miami-Dade zones to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Dacquisto is proposing that we extend the existing zoning that Barry University has to the annexed areaPublic hearing now open.


1. Bar Joseph spoke about a parking lot he wanted to paint and some problem with the contractor. The volunteer interpreter who lives at 535 NW 103 Street asked Mr. Joseph if he owned the house. He said yes. The parking lot is something he wanted to do. The Board suggested to have Maggie at public works to meet with Mr. Joseph to help him with his issue.

2. David Smitterman of 570 NW 112 Street. He states that he did not get the letter about this meeting. With regards to duplex he owns a duplex and he is concerned about it. He brought up the issue of what can be expected down the road.

Mr. Sarafan explains what will happen with this proposal and how the Council will go about it. This is all public record.

The Board asked questions. Mr. Dacquisto explains the existing code. Mr. Sarafan said that there may be a place for duplex. There was Board discussion about duplex.

Motion to recommend approval of the amendments to Appendix A zoning per the Public Hearing. Seconded by Ms. Hegedus and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.


4) Council request: Consider amending, the Comprehensive Plan to replace the Miami-Dade Future Land Use Map designations of Low Density and Low Medium Density for the annexed land in the north-west corner of the village. Consider changing the comprehensive plan designation for Barry University land that was not subject of the annexation from Multi-Use Residential / Institutional to Institutional.

Mr. Dacquisto gave a brief explanation of the item as to what he is proposing. Mr. Dacquisto proposed to extend the existing Barry comprehensive plan institutional designation to the annexed property. There was also a former dog track that actually had a designation of multi-use residential institutional. He wanted to change that so it will also conform to the institutional zone that we already had for the rest of Barry University. Barry University had no objection. The other change is to apply the low medium density to the annexed that is residential.

No Public comment.

Motion to recommend approval by Mr. Snow. Seconded by Mr. Busta and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.

Mr. Sarafan point of clarification, all this approves is to amend the comp plan to show changes to the comprehensive zoning map.



a. December 8, 2016

Motion to approve the Minutes of December 8, 2016 by Mr. Busta, seconded by Mr. Diaz and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.




a. None




1) PZ-11-16-201685: North-east corner of NE 11th Avenue and 105th Street (Owner) Ocean Mall Investments LLC / Gil Guadalpi, Applicant) Same, (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations, Sec. 523.1 and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. New residence.

Motion to approve subject to Staff’s recommendations with an amendment to the motion to add landscaping to buffer the view of the installation, subject to the approval of Staff moved by Ms. Hegedus. Seconded by Mr. Busta and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.


2) PZ-12-16-201686: 746 NE 94TH Street, (Owner) William Arnold & Viviane Gutter, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Lida Prieto; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. One-story addition.

Motion to approve subject to Staff’s recommendations made by Mr. Snow, seconded by Mr. Diaz and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.


3) PZ-12-16-201688: 93 NW 97th Street, (Owner) Barbara Delgado, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Javier Losada; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Garage conversion.

Motion to approve subject to Staff’s recommendations to include that the swale in front of the converted garage be restored to its original condition made by Mr. Diaz, seconded by Ms. Hegedus and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.


4) PZ-12-16-201689: 25 NE 108th Street, (Owner) Puja Motiani, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Mark Campbell; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. One story addition.

Motion to approve subject to Staff’s recommendation made by Mr. Busta, seconded by Mr. Snow and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.


5) PZ-12-16-201690: 129 NW 96th Street, (Owner) Erik Saccomani, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Keith Gamble; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Garage conversion

Motion to approve subject to Staff’s recommendations made by Mr. Snow, seconded by Ms. Hegedus and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.


6) PZ-12-16-201691: 114 NE 106th Street, (Owner) Jacqueline Irwin, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Mark Campbell; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Garage conversion.

Motion to approve subject to Staff’s recommendations made by Mr. Snow, seconded by Mr. Busta and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.


7) PZ-12-16-201692: 1060 NE 105th Street, (Owner) Duplex 900 LLC, Laurent Ben Soussan, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. One-story addition.

Motion to approve subject to Staff’s recommendations, seconded by Mr. Snow and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.




1) Downtown design manual and accompanying zoning code amendments.

Mr. Dacquisto told the Board that he had been having some issues with the web page for Miami Shores and the discussion items did not show up on the agenda, all the numbering was off. He will have someone take a look. Mr. Dacquisto explains that the discussion items were simply to let the Board know that this was going to be discussed at the Workshop on February 9 th, 2017. There was discussion as to the items that were in the Board Members packages. Mr. Snow requested that the language that was being changed in the recommendations be underlined to show what was changed. Mr. Dacquisto said that all the language is new as Miami Shores repeals and replaces generally and the new code language was different in content and structure from the existing. What goes to Council you don’t see any underlined text. Mr. Dacquisto says that he can do the underlined for this Board to make it clear. There was only one time that they used the underline and it was because it was required by FEMA.


2) 24-Hour Gas station, convenience store.

Mr. Dacquisto said that the Council had requested this discussion that would allow for 24- hour gas stations / convenience stores in Miami Shores. The gas station on Biscayne wanted to put in a 24-hour convenience store. Council listened to the owner and sent it to P & Z Board to consider whether or not to allow 24-hour gas station, mainly it would only apply to Biscayne because that is the only one that we have in a B2 district where gas stations are allowed. Ms. Hegedus pointed out some benefits and drawbacks of allowing 24-hour gas stations. The Board discussed the drawback of 24- hour gas stations and the potential of bringing some negative elements to the area after midnight. Mr. Dacquisto said that this will be discussed again on February 9, 2017 at the Workshop and then it can be scheduled for February 23, 2017 for the Public Hearing.


3) Dog park, review by planning board.

The Chair wanted to first bring out the planning aspect of the Dog park. Council went ahead with the project without the Planning and Zoning Board looking at the Site Plan. The Chair mentioned Mr. Cliff Walters. The Chair mentioned a book that tells you all about building a dog park and what the book says the minimum size of 1 acre. The Chair compared what is the Dog park and what should be. He spoke of the issue of having small dogs and big dogs confined in a small area will be a problem. He brought up the issue of sanitary conditions and problems with feces and urine saturating over time. The Chair mentioned all the parks in the area that are well designed. The Chair gave examples of instances where big dogs harmed smaller dogs. He gave a hypothesis of what could happen at the new park adjacent to the pool. He brought up injuries that had occurred with kids next to the dog parks. Safety and usage is an issue. The Swale was designed for drainage. Health issues with the kids walking barefooted. This is a safety issue, a health issue. 602, 604, 605 sections Chairman Fernandez points out. Grossly disappointed that due process was not followed. The Board brought up safety issue of visibility and accessibility. Safety issue is a concern. The Board asked questions about parking requirement. Mr. Sarafan points out that he is hearing is different expressions of opinions about something that the Council has already done. Chairman Fernandez said that there is nothing that the Board can do other than express displeasure with the park project. Mr. Sarafan said that there are two things to say:

1. This is not something that the Council did in Stealth. There were a number of meetings and there were a lot of speakers one of whom is here. To my recollection all the boards issues were raised and heard by the Council as part of the process.

2. Any suggestion that there some intent to cut this Board out of the process because they felt you would not approve it I would disagree with for a couple of reasons, the fact is the Council is not afraid of your suggestions because if the Council does not like them they just over rule them anyway.

3. This entire conversation is pretty academic because if not completed the park is pretty much completed.

Mr. Sarafan continues by saying that the Board can pass a Resolution expressing disappointment, you are certainly free to do that and will communicate that to the Council.

Mr. Snow expressed discontent with this project. He would be in favor of drafting a Resolution to go to the Council.

Public Comment by Mr. Steven Shullman who’s address is 471 NE 101 Street. He expressed appreciation for all of the Boards comments on the issue of the park. He directed his comments to Chairman Fernandez. He asked if this meeting is recorded so that he could get the recording for all of the Boards comments. Mr. Shullman states that he had been a resident since 1991. He states that he had been pushing for this dog park for a long time. He initially wanted this park at Constitution Park. He thought that this would have been a perfect location. The residents surrounding this area were opposed to it. This was back in 2005. He stated that the Dog park location now is a bad location in agreement with the Board. He mentioned Mr. Mac Glinn and said that he is the one that chose this location. Mr. Shullman states that he decided to take what they gave him instead of fighting. He went over everything he had done to research how surrounding areas did their dog parks. He mentioned Mr. Glinn regarding all the approvals that the Dog park had to go through. At this point this is what we got, as much as we do not like it. Mr. Shullman shows the Board where the flooding is. The Board disagrees. Mr. Shullman went on speak as to what they are having to do and all the approvals that were required. Chairman Fernandez says that the first dog bite that happens the dog park is going to be closed. Mr. Shullman states that there is always a what if? He shows the Board that the park is less than a third of an acre. Mr. Shullman asked Mr. Dacquisto about the publishing of the Agenda for this meeting. He expressed appreciation of the Board. The Board asked questions.

The Chairman requested Staff to put on the Agenda for next meeting a Resolution expressing the Board’s concern.

The following was submitted by Chairman Fernandez to be included in these minutes:

§ The site is too small – only 1/3 acre where the recommended minimum is 1 acre (See “So You Want to Build a Dog Park. A Comprehensive Guide to Municipalities and Private Entities” 13 th Edition by Susan Stecchi 2007).

o Space might be big enough for an apartment community, with small dogs, but not for an entire municipality.

o Stecchi recommends 1 acre for big dogs and 1 acre for small dogs. Separated or single plot of land of 1 acre can be apportioned by time to dog size.

o Lack of space is going to encourage dog fights.

o Triangular nature of property will create acute corners that may traps for dogs being pursued by other dogs.

Note 1: Not enough space to adequately separate large and small dogs, reducing the “playing surface” substantially, as little as 1/6 of an acre for each of the two dog sizes.

Note 2: Amenities such as park benches, seating, ADA walkway compliance, lighting, butterfly garden, fire standpipes all reduce usable dog play surfaces.


Most importantly , above the initial outlay, heavy use of small area will present a constant maintenance problem and continuing cost for the Village.

§ In the ordinary course, dogs will dig, trample, urinate and defecate on grass. The park will quickly become unattractive, if not temporarily unusable as grass will require re-sodding, chemical treatments for insects and odor (urine cannot be picked up)

§ Every tune sod needs to be replaced, park will have to be closed.

§ (I viewed the following)

  • Lake Ida Dog Park (Delray Beach, FL) has multiple fenced-off areas specifically so that one area can be open while another is being re-sodded

Beach Dog Park (Boynton Beach, FL), which is just under ½ acre, opened in mid-October 2016. (Lots of dirt)

§ Military Trail Dog Park on 89th St and NE 8th Ct, Miami, is – 2 acres. (County)

§ Compare with nearby *84th St and East Dixie highway dog park that is triangular and about 1/3 of an acre with no separation. Muddy mess at the triangle when it rains bare dirt in the center, corners and entrance/exit.

o Heavy rain in the summer months will exacerbate this problem.

o Dry spells during the winter likewise.

  • Site creates safety and health risks

o Dogs getting loose

§ Running onto immediately adjacent US 1

§ Running through parking lots of the aquatic alarmingly close to US 1 and proximity to highly pedestrian trafficked Aquatic Center eg large groups of small children who attended by camp counselors (not as closely supervised as might be by a parent) and elderly who congregate for water aerobics, etc.

§ Instances of children being injured at dog parks are fairly common. Do a google search and you’ll find dozens or more such news stories.

§ Many dog parks have posted rules that restrict small children from even entering.

o Increase traffic congestion in parking lot.

§ Besides the general inconvenience, kids, dogs and other cars could collide with distracted drivers.

§ Reduction of parking by some 10 spaces to increase space for the dog park reduces the proximity of ADA spaces and increases the likely traffic within the parking area for those looking for a parking space. Parking will be remote for most increasing the parking lot exposure and jeopardy to personal property. Busy summer hours compounded by camp usage and shared Country Club parking, leads to the conclusion that there will not be sufficient parking to support the three facilities and overflow is going to likely bleed over into the Country Club Parking.

o Dog Park contamination through run off and tracked dog waste and contaminants onto the pool deck and eventually into the pool increasing the need for filtration and chlorination ($cost$). Many children arrive and leave the Aquatic Center barefoot.

  • It’s not clear what this impact will be.
  • The Dog Park area was purposely designed as a swale area to absorb water run – off from the approved pool parking lots as well as the road slope of US 1. The existing parking does not have French drains or soakage pits. It was part of the aquatics site that was not “de-mucked” when the facility was built. In recent heavy rains the area was a muddy swamp as water was not quickly absorbed and wicked away by permeable sand or new soakage pits.
  • The Dog Park will have the same high visibility problem as the Aquatic Center, that is, challenges to limit use to residents only. It’s right next to Biscayne Boulevard where hundreds of thousands of people drive by! The allure will be uncontrollable without an attendant and access keys. The aquatic center will become the defacto dog park doormen and first aid providers. The use of the pool restrooms will be demanded by dog park patrons without paying for admission. And what do they do with their dogs? I believe it is against the law to stake a dog, against the health code to being dogs into the pool – not even considering the safety factor of an unattended dog – and unconscionable to leave a dog in a car!
  • This proposal is an accident waiting to happen. Just Google Dog Park accidents and injuries with children at dog parks, a fairly common occurrence. (Look at the Center for Disease Control website on dog bite citing the very young and the very old as being most likely to be bitten.) The plan is to put in an already congested area the funnel – like convergence of parking traffic, dogs, small children with distracted parents or un-attentive camp counselors, and, the elderly?
  • In my opinion, the Village Council circumvented the Planning Board site plan approval process, as this plan was clearly an amendment to the original aquatics site plan approval (or is it a new facility?) included unde §602, §604, and §605 eg., parking, driveways, access, vegetation, landscaping drainage, ingress and egress, public safety, and fences and within the mandate of the Planning Board. Were some more interested in perceived political interests, than what made sense for the Village? There were and are better alternatives mere minutes form any doorstep in Miami Shores (See Reference to Miami Trail Dog Park above).
  • There is no telling what bacteria mass is percolating in the dampness (Giardia, Crypto, etc.). Not what may happen if a dog in their exuberance jumps on and knocks down the young or the elderly patrons of the Aquatic Center patrons of the aquatic center or runs into the street to their own demise or causing an auto accident on one of the busiest thoroughfares in North Dade mere yards away. There are better Dog Park alternatives and nearby county resources! The ordinary site plan evaluation process has been avoided and the appropriate board not consulted.


IX) NEXT WORKSHOP –February 9, 2017 at 7:00 PM.

a) February 9, 2017 at 7:00 PM.


X) NEXT REGULAR BOARD HEARING – February 23, 2017.



a) Adjourned.

Pursuant to Chapter 286.0105, Florida Statutes, if person decides to appeal any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based.

Miami Shores Village complies with the provisions of the American with Disability Act. If you are a disabled person requiring any accommodations or assistance, including materials in accessible format, a sign language interpreter (5 days’ notice required), or information, please notify the Village Clerk’s office of such need at least 72 hours (3 days) in advance.