Reso 2024-3770 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 of 6 On September 11, 2024 (over a year after Owners submitted the Application), the HPB held a second hearing ("Second Hearing"). Instead of presenting testimony from a qualified structural engineer, the City retained a Registered Architect to conduct a peer review of Mr. Hachem's reports. The Architect's review, which was not a peer review since a Registered Architect is not a "peer" or an engineer qualified to assess the structural integrity of the structure, did not disagree with any of Mr. Hachem's findings. Instead of approving the Application, the HPB arbitrarily denied the Application, seeking to place Owners in a position where they must either continue to live in a structure that is prone to flooding and at a high risk of hurricane damage with no insurance, or spend millions of dollars in an effort to elevate the house and bring the structure up to current Building Code standards, when a qualified engineer has opined that those efforts would not succeed. Because the City's actions unfairly and unreasonably burden Owners' Property and would result in an undue economic hardship that results in an uncompensated and unconstitutional taking of the Property, Owners filed this instant appeal to the Commission seeking a reversal of the HPB's COA Denial. II. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT LEGAL AUTHORITY SUPPORTING REVERSAL A. Changed Circumstances Require Reversal. At the HPB First and Second Hearings, Owners presented evidence of changed circumstances to support demolition. It is well established that changed circumstances and hardships, such as those affecting Owner, warranted the relief that Owner sought. See, e.g., Lorenz v. City of Florissant, 747 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. 1988) (holding that a variance to a local historic district zoning restriction may be granted based on parcel specific hardships); State by Powderly v. Erickson, 301 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 1981) (holding that to permanently deny an owner the beneficial use of his property by requiring him to make a substantial investment in repairs and renovations over his objection would constitute a taking for which the owner would have a right of compensation (emphasis added)); Lafayette Park Baptist Church v. Scott, 553 S.W.2d 856 (Mo. App. 1977) (holding that a landowner could not be obligated under the police power of the state, absent condemnation, to expend his money for the benefit of the public or alternatively to forgo any use of his land for the foreseeable future as a result of the determination of a board of adjustment under an historical district ordinance that it was physically possible to save a structure, although at an expense unwarranted by any possible use of the structure after rehabilitation (emphasis added)); Joachim Beno Steinberg, New York City's Landmarks Law and the Rescission Process, 66 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 951, 954 (2011).3 J It is also compelling that the Florida legislature preempted local ordinances that seek to prevent demolition of single-family residential structures in flood prone areas. § 553.79(25), Fla. Stat. ("A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit or otherwise restrict the ability of a private property owner to obtain a building permit to demolish his or her single-family residential structure located in a coastal high -hazard area, moderate flood zone, or special flood hazard area according to a Flood Insurance Rate Map issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purpose of participating in the National Flood Insurance Program if the lowest finished floor elevation of such structure is at or below base flood elevation as established by the Florida Shubin Law Group Shubmlawgroup.com I Tel (305) 381-6060 1 Fax (305) 381-9457 152 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION