The City of Miami Commission sided with Coconut Grove residents last week when it voted to deny a developer’s attempt to split a large South Grove property to accommodate three new single-family homes.
In a unanimous vote, the Miami City Commission granted an appeal last week denying developers the chance to split 4055 Poinciana Ave. into three building sites, overturning an earlier decision by the city’s Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board (PZAB).
The proposed split, which was opposed by the city’s professional planning staff, would have divided the 21,000-square-foot property into three 7,000-square-foot lots, each large enough to accommodate a single-family home.
Although the South Grove property is composed of three platted parcels, the land had been united as one building site with one single-family home since 1947.
“As somebody who knows that street very well, it’s enormously trafficked. I think it’s not appropriate for that neighborhood or that street,” District 2 Commissioner Damian Pardo said Thursday before voting to support neighborhood objections and grant the appeal. “I feel like that specific neighborhood has felt a deterioration of character.”
The decision follows the recommendation of city planners, who found that the smaller lots would be out of place on a block where the average lot size is 11,712 square feet.
The property was purchased in 2023 for $2.7 million by 4055 Poinciana Ave LLC, a Miami Beach company managed by Ramiro Cuellar and Marvin Colegial.
“We are disappointed that the City Commission did not appreciate why three appropriately-scaled, thoughtfully-designed, and lushly-landscaped homes would be more in keeping with the existing neighborhood fabric than one massive mansion with minimal landscaping requirements,” attorney Mark Grafton of Shubin Law Group said in a statement on behalf of his clients.
The proposed split had become a flash point for South Grove residents seeking to preserve the character of their neighborhood. A petition opposing the split, started by Grove Watch Group, accumulated 433 signatures by the time of Thursday’s vote.
“Lot splitting destroys neighborhoods,” Debbie Dolson, a South Grove resident who rallied neighbors in opposition, told commissioners before the vote.
Other neighbors spoke out against the move as well, voicing concern about traffic congestion, increased density and the loss of tree canopy.
“My husband is a retired firefighter and he’s always asking me what if there’s an emergency on this street. Because now when the lawn and garden people park you can’t get through,” Miriam Morejon, a neighboring homeowner, said.
In an effort to address neighborhood concerns, developers offered to reserve 40% of each property for landscaping and to plant a total of 18 trees across the site, 15 more than would be required if the property remained united as one building site.
Attorney Tucker Gibbs, who appealed the earlier PZAB decision on behalf of Poinciana homeowner Alexandra Lumpkin, urged commissioners to grant the appeal, saying the proposed split did not meet the requirements of the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) which protects the historic character of the Grove.
“Our position was very simple, that it didn’t matter if it was two or three or 20 [lots], we would still be opposed to it because it was basically going in and changing what the community looked like,” Gibbs said in an interview with the Spotlight.
Therefore, he explained, any effort to sweeten the deal, including a guarantee of adding more trees, was not persuasive.
The commission decision affirms an earlier decision by city planning staff to reject a 2017 proposal known as the “Three Avocados”, in which developers sought to split a single property on Avocado Avenue in the South Grove into three home sites.
At the time, the planning department found the lots would be too small and increase the density of the neighborhood – the same argument city staff made regarding the property on Poinciana Avenue.
“It’s something that the city has dealt with this issue now twice in the last several years, and they have done the same thing each time,” Gibbs said.
Grafton said his clients are evaluating their options moving forward. The developers could go to court to appeal the commission’s decision, or seek to split the lot into two building sites, a compromise suggested by city planners.
“We remain committed to building something that the Grove can be proud of,” Grafton said on behalf of his client.
My congratulations to attorney Tucker Gibbs and the appellants who successfully—and against the notorious 2017 court decision in Cube3585 vs City of Miami—prevailed in upholding the Grove’s Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3) protection of our unique and various characteristics.
This is an important victory and follows a disgraceful decision by the PZAB (with vocal board member Paul Mann one of only two votes voting NO) approving the lot split to the Commission over Staff’s recommendation of denial.
At that PZAB meeting, the developer’s attorney made the jaw-dropping statement that the developer was almost though permitting before being informed of “an obscure provision” of the Code requiring him to get a warrant. (A warrant is an appealable decision by the Zoning Director that a building permit does not violate any provision of Miami 21, including Appendix A thereof, which includes NCD-3).
The reason I bring these details up—at the risk of Spotlight readers’ eyes glossing over—is that it shows we’ve made progress since Tucker and the City lost the Cube 3585 appeal almost a decade ago. That case involved the demolition of the century-old Charlie Cinnamon cottage by a developer wishing to split the lot. Neighbors protested, saying the demolition violated NCD3.
The Court found “…that the PZAB departed from the essential requirements of the law by utilizing intent provisions of the Zoning Code as a standard, thereby imposing an arbitrary and impossible standard for the issuance of a Waiver…”
and
“…that section 3.2, Intent, Appendix A, of the Zoning Code is not a discernable professional standard [criteria] for the issuance of a Waiver…(and) should be interpreted as merely setting out broad policy objectives embodied by the NCD-3…”
and
…the PZAB departed from the essential requirements of the law and applied the wrong standard by following the intent provisions of the Waiver and NCD-3 zoning overlay.”
Yes, we have a victory. But the Cube 3585 decision still may be a controlling precedent if the Poinciana lot-splitter decides to appeal. It’s good news that the Commission’s vote apparently appears to respect NCD-3, but still worrisome that the B & Z staff allowed this developer to proceed almost to permit before alerting him (assuming he really needed to be) of the NCD-3.
My opinion is that the City Commission,–if it really wants to enforce NCD’s and avoid another Cube3585 disaster–should reinforce the Intent provisions of Miami 21 by inserting in Section 7.2 “Permits” that “All warrants, waivers, exceptions, variances, and Administrative Site Plan Reviews must comply with the additional provisions and protections of Appendix A.”
If this were in Miami 21, no longer would any developer be able to claim being surprised to learn of an “obscure provision” of the Code, and any appeal through the Courts would hear judges ruling “If you don’t like your elected lawmakers, vote them out,” just as we have sadly been forced to hear so many times before.
Please make following correction:
This is an important victory and follows a disgraceful decision by the PZAB (with vocal board member Paul Mann one of only THREE votes voting NO) approving the lot split to the Commission over Staff’s recommendation of denial.