Reso 2024-3770 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 of 6 preservation guidelines. However, as thirty years has gone by and the home reaches an age of 88, South Florida's climate is changing, and sea levels have risen. It is now apparent that the residential structure, which is located adjacent to the water's edge in a high-risk flood zone, exposed to salt air and subject to periodic flooding, is at high risk of unsalvageable hurricane damage and further structural deterioration. As a result of these changed circumstances, on August 25, 2023, Owners applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the structure ("Application").z On May 7, 2024, the HPB held the first hearing to consider the Application (the First Hearing). At the First Hearing, the HPB heard testimony from Owners about the changed circumstances since they purchased the home, including the fact that Owners were denied windstorm insurance due to the age and condition of the structure and as a result, the structure was uninsurable. The HPB also heard evidence that the Application met the City's criteria for approval because demolition and construction of a new structure that is elevated and resistant to flooding and hurricane damage would be compatible with the surrounding structurally -sound and flood - resistant properties in the neighborhood. See § 171-10, City Code. In addition, the HPB heard expert testimony from Youssef Hachem of Youssef Hachem Consulting Engineering, the professional structural engineer hired to assess the structural condition of the structure. Mr. Hachem testified that, structurally, the "roof connections for wind uplift forces and wind lateral resistance are non-existent"; the building has "several linear cracking on the walls, concrete spalling, clay masonry walls that are unreinforced with linear cracking"; and that "CMU reinforcing is also non-existent." He also testified that the structure does not comply with current building code; that the structure has the potential risk of failure in case of a hurricane or heavy storm scenario; that the structure needs to be raised to meet flood requirements; that the building needs to undergo extensive rehabilitation to the foundations which risk compromising the total stability and integrity of the house; and that in order to raise the structure, scaffolding would need to be installed but the foundation is weak enough to crumble under such loads during the jacking process. Due to the structural deficiencies, Mr. Hachem concluded that it is not feasible to elevate or move the structure. Despite the competent substantial evidence presented to the HPB supporting approval and confirming that the City's criteria for issuance of a COA had been satisfied, the HPB opined that the expert testimony of the professional engineer was not enough, that the City should hire their own engineer to assess the structure, and continued the hearing to a later date. Owner originally sought to remove the individual historic site designation of the structure, so it did not have to immediately seek demolition, however, the City does not have any criteria in its Code to remove historic designation and the criteria for listing a structure as historic does not include structural deterioration, flooding, or sea -level related issues. While Owner maintains that this lack of process is an unconstitutional infringement on Owner's due process rights, and without waiving any legal rights to challenge that process, Owner proceeded with an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. Shubin Law Group Shubinlawgroup,com I Tel (305) 381-6060 1 Fax (305) 381-9457 151 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION