[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6119236,"mediaKeyId","2713391-5f1455837ef2fb9c12631c0f9b0452ab","parentId",2713391,"title","Miami Beach board approves after-the-fact variances for homeowner caring for elderly relative","audioSeconds",1955,"startMs",512000,"endMs",2467000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2713391-5f1455837ef2fb9c12631c0f9b0452ab&start=512&end=2467","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2713391-5f1455837ef2fb9c12631c0f9b0452ab/thumbnail_512000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6119236/Miami-Beach/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Miami-Beach-board-approves-after-the-fact-variances-for-homeowner-caring-for-elderly-relative","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119236-8071e26191218a8f567beb9a0090ff8b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200727&Signature=dZiDmy1BL3dCpZ0fIrayRBf4HfTzWfTREvlKTAXlsCUcLjjjVX45Cn4NF0NGEQ~OE0vMETQAI1ArPQ1unTKPyH6EnaLf7qmOIuellSs9ltnLbKKxiOt-TSm~~qNdX5MvNIT1nDgkYEzuYwzmV5ul7QN0XpYOQCISCWnPqtMeF5dKJz0ms4NfBfx7rDhHzqz790rdvoTuG-1b316dI1BEYGTV1vgC-UT0WkGjibGBNJpZEYu31KlnCUckfHV4ceOU257vnkABPnOuS5TnNzEHdPD-lYoimK5mqFIgYGGmXr9qQQSjsrlfJ8NIn88CSm0QL67YNQYufGQgZHBmChw2VQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Miami Beach, FL","date","2025-03-20T15:41:24Z","article","The Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 8 approved after-the-fact variances that allow two one‑story additions to remain on a single‑story home at West 40 Second Street, finding the legal standard for variance relief met and attaching conditions to mitigate neighborhood impacts.

Board members voted 6-0 to grant variances for interior side setbacks, a reduced rear setback and a slight shortfall in required pervious open space, subject to a required landscape plan, correction or permitting of an unpermitted driveway expansion on Prairie Avenue, and a condition that the bathroom serving the addition be enlarged and made accessible if required by the Building Department.

The property owner, who spoke through applicant Jeffrey Callas, told the board the additions include a bedroom and a specially equipped room used by an elderly relative with Alzheimer’s disease and limited mobility. \"We would like you to pass this variance,\" Callas said, describing the room’s wheelchair access and the hardship that removing it would cause the family. Neighbors who live nearby and people who said they have known the family for years testified in support of the variances, saying the additions have not caused noticeable harm.

Staff described the work as \"after‑the‑fact\" construction and laid out the specific code departures. Planning staff said the additions reduce the interior side yard setback where code requires 7 feet, 6 inches — one addition now sits roughly 3.1 feet from the interior side yard and another about 0.7 feet — and the rear yard in places is about 2 feet where 20 feet is required. Staff also reported that the property provides 63% pervious open space in the rear yard, short of the 70% required by the zoning code. The report noted the structure’s finished floor elevation is about 5.5 feet NGVD, below the 9‑foot baseline for new construction, and that roofs of the additions are located at roughly 14 feet NGVD, a height staff compared to allowed fence heights to help quantify visual impacts.

Planning staff recommended approval, concluding that hardship and practical difficulty standards had been met and proposing conditions to reduce impacts: submit a full landscape plan for staff review as part of the building permit; either remove or obtain a right‑of‑way permit for the unpermitted driveway expansion on Prairie Avenue; and satisfy all applicable building‑code requirements as part of the after‑the‑fact permit process. During deliberations board members and staff discussed a practical condition proposed by Board Member James Silvers: allow the applicant to expand the bathroom toward the south by up to 3 feet and require a three‑foot door so caregivers can safely transfer a wheelchair bound resident. Planning staff said requiring or permitting the bathroom expansion would give the owner the flexibility needed to meet building‑department accessibility requirements when applying for an after‑the‑fact permit.

After public comment and board discussion the motion to approve the variances with the conditions passed 6‑0. The board recorded that the landscape plan must be submitted and approved as part of the building permit, the driveway either be permitted or removed to meet setback and open‑space requirements, and the applicant must satisfy all building‑code conditions for the after‑the‑fact permit. The approval preserved the variances as constructed, subject to those conditions.

The board’s action does not change any separate building‑permit review that the owner must complete. Staff reminded the board that even with the zoning variances granted, the owner must still obtain an after‑the‑fact building permit that satisfies structural, accessibility and other building‑code requirements before receiving a certificate of occupancy or resuming any rental or commercial use of the additions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Adjustment September 8 2023","oneSentenceSummary","The Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 8 approved after-the-fact variances that allow two one‑story additions to remain on a single‑story home at West 40 Second Street, finding the legal standard for variance relief met and attaching conditions to mitigate neighborhood impacts.","taxTitle","Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida","taxId",2893,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6119226,"Board upholds planning director: appeal to reestablish suite‑hotel use at 1330 15th Street denied",1420,3402000,4822000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2713391-5f1455837ef2fb9c12631c0f9b0452ab&start=3402&end=4822","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2713391-5f1455837ef2fb9c12631c0f9b0452ab/thumbnail_3402000.jpg","/articles/6119226/Miami-Beach/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Board-upholds-planning-director-appeal-to-reestablish-suitehotel-use-at-1330-15th-Street-denied","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119226-adecc977dd6942197ace24a5347a6ad7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200727&Signature=VW6MAyDixFH6Z3uE--xSIaiebBbdwHTQxoLVEz6HLZ6Kp9sISJr9rkjcPh6Qh8rm4cZdQ9aYiigU2WhiMyfa18yvMPqTNIEM9M1QioI7ULM0lvjqpa01frkG3E59qbaAWPWQq0hvfnJrgBvBNLZuibJ4HCMNAN8om3ll4iOLhg-F5uBMV8cU291DyhokJ8mTqcPD6QgI0zQS8eN5I4yvETFQKmjSGT6lV9HPbUBC28HtU8b4xHftB87CBKklN7Y3dXp5U4AfbzqN~c-XENVF5U2Km2qHUG6jJCU3MN0uunkXs8deilUFK3fCp6MJrXn79xCwrOIbufXwUFZqHPmRmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 8 denied an owner’s appeal seeking to reinstate a nonconforming suite‑hotel use at 1330 Fifteenth Street, voting 6‑0 to affirm a Planning Director decision that the owner had not preserved or demonstrated an uninterrupted right to that nonconforming use.

The appeal followed earlier Board action in May and a motion for reconsideration after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) completed a report that the board requested. Attorney Philip Hudson, representing the owner, argued the OIG report shows the owner never intended to abandon or change the prior suite‑hotel use and that a flawed application and miscommunication between the owner’s permit expediter and city intake staff led to an incorrect CU/BTR (certificate of use/business tax receipt) being issued for non‑transient apartments instead of a hotel. Hudson said documentary records and his client’s testimony support the claim that the owner intended to operate the property as a hotel and that the city’s reliance on the flawed form should not extinguish a legally established nonconforming use.

Planning Director Stephen Mooney told the board the director’s decision rested not on any single misfilled field but on the written submissions that planning staff received and reviewed. Mooney explained that a new CU/BTR was issued for a non‑transient apartment use in May 2020 because the prior owner had closed out the earlier CU/BTR and resort‑tax account; under city procedure the new owner’s submission was reviewed as a new application and the submitted form specified apartment use for zoning review. \"Once that application with the proposed use for residential apartments came into planning and it was approved by planning, that basically set forth in motion the remainder of the CU BTR moving forward as a residential apartment non‑transient,\" Mooney said.

The OIG report — which the board received and put in the record — found evidence of miscommunication and inconsistent handling of documents by the permit expediter and some third parties, noted missing or destroyed records at the permit expediter, and said the report did not find malfeasance by city employees; it also did not make a legal recommendation on the appeal. The OIG concluded the application ultimately issued did not reflect the intent claimed by the owner and described a \"domino effect\" of errors and misunderstandings. Hudson urged the board to treat the OIG findings as evidence that the CU/BTR on which staff relied was unreliable and to restore his client’s nonconforming suite‑hotel status.

Neighbors and other residents spoke in opposition to the appeal, citing recurring late‑night disturbances, trash and safety concerns tied to short‑term rentals operating in residential areas, and the neighborhood’s preference for long‑term residents. Several nearby property owners and renters described quality‑of‑life problems they attributed to an existing short‑term rental operation at the property and urged the board to leave the planning director’s decision intact. \"This board is not convened to remedy the mistake of a private company, but to protect the residents of Miami Beach and apply the codes as they are written,\" said a nearby resident, Xander Fudernick.

Board members focused their deliberations on the legal standard for abandonment and change of use under City Code Section 118‑394(b). That code provides that a legally established nonconforming use is lost if there is an \"intentional and voluntary abandonment\" for more than 183 consecutive days or if the nonconforming use is changed to a conforming use. Board members and staff debated whether the record establishes that the owner knowingly and intentionally changed or waived his nonconforming use rights; Planning Director Mooney argued the submitted, reviewed and approved CU/BTR established the change to a conforming use and that later enforcement or a different application filed in 2021 could not revive the prior suite‑hotel status.

After considering appellant argument, planning testimony and public comment, Board Member Jeffrey Aronson moved to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Director’s decision; the motion was seconded and passed 6‑0. The board recorded its action and the vote and closed the matter. The decision affirms the director’s determination and keeps in place the city’s interpretation that the property’s zoning history and submitted application resulted in non‑transient apartment status rather than a reinstated suite‑hotel use.

The board’s denial does not prevent the owner from pursuing other lawful uses consistent with code or from taking administrative or legal steps outside the zoning appeal — for example, civil action against a private permit expediter if the owner believes the expediter’s handling of paperwork caused harm. The Inspector General’s report, which raised procedural concerns about record handling and communication, was retained in the municipal record for potential follow up by city staff and oversight offices.","The Zoning Board of Adjustment denied an appeal seeking to reinstate a nonconforming suite‑hotel use at 1330 Fifteenth Street, affirming the planning director’s determination after reviewing a new Inspector General report and hearing substantial public comment.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6119231,"Board approves second‑floor addition variance at Lagores Drive; architect says design respects neighborhood",875,2494000,3369000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2713391-5f1455837ef2fb9c12631c0f9b0452ab&start=2494&end=3369","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2713391-5f1455837ef2fb9c12631c0f9b0452ab/thumbnail_2494000.jpg","/articles/6119231/Miami-Beach/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Board-approves-secondfloor-addition-variance-at-Lagores-Drive-architect-says-design-respects-neighborhood","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119231-0e72bda1dcc017c203f45f6c75b922ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200727&Signature=fWhh8t1924fTgTenNm60dA0N7MfDdU1ofS6mwg1riABLMuEDx8TuM1cn7E2aTMpXZqMQsM9B4g~f-LbcfZFgto-Xw4FObgRPhahWvONh~VKV0JK3LgCETz3tlHopygykcd~h52xJ2wyuYwBWJTiPC0EZ8jzSBY~FzSvBSmkvTnUj-qX4~silcZ9ZuN~zQvPxmioz3Bg-f6-Bmz2LXa6-gXGSElL~D2sT-19AjPse4RMHMHBayUhZE3cr4a3VPqxyIsOHLXg6fiB60d4BkpIG3kDWpEE6dCiytQk5ovwgFyJY7QITWeussZFaKO0vRdCSQFOZpeSb8s2-XIBZfkYy4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 8 approved a pair of variances allowing a partial second‑floor addition and a small infill at a single‑story home on Lagores Drive, concluding that the house’s existing configuration creates practical difficulties for complying with normal setback and lot‑coverage requirements.

The board voted 6‑0 to permit a second‑floor addition that would follow the first‑floor setback (existing street‑side setback ranges from about 5.7 to 6.8 feet where 15 feet is required) and to allow a modest increase in lot coverage. The property is a pre‑1965 single‑story house; staff noted the maximum lot coverage for a two‑story building is 30% but the existing pre‑1965 single‑story baseline carries a 50% allowance. The project would raise lot coverage from 40.8% to about 41.9% once the second floor and a previously exempt covered breezeway infill are counted.

Owner and architect Nick Gelpi, who described himself as both the property owner and project architect, told the board the house is an unusual, deep U‑shaped plan with a recessed courtyard. He said shifting the proposed second floor northward to meet the street‑side setback would cover a deeply recessed courtyard and materially increase lot coverage, and could present structural difficulties for aligning a new second floor with existing walls. Gelpi presented elevations and renderings and told the board the addition was pushed back from the street and sited to reduce visibility from the public right‑of‑way. \"We're hoping that the upstairs bathroom now ... it's really the idea was that it's a home office,\" Gelpi said, explaining program changes and showing how family use would shift within the house.

No members of the public were present on Zoom to oppose the application; board members said they visited the block and found surrounding houses already included two‑story buildings and large trees that would reduce visual impact. Staff recommended approval, citing practical difficulties tied to the lot and the house configuration. Conditions discussed included submitting a full landscape plan to address frontage and privacy impacts; Gelpi said he plans to work with a landscape architect on the design.

The motion to approve the variances was made by Board Member Jeffrey Aronson and seconded by Board Member Andres Assayant; the board approved the variances 6‑0. The applicant and his architect were told to coordinate final site, elevation and landscape details with staff as part of the building‑permit review before construction proceeds.

The decision allows the property owner to proceed with schematic design and to pursue building permits; any changes required by building‑department review or the landscape plan must be incorporated before a certificate of occupancy is issued.","The Zoning Board of Adjustment unanimously approved variances allowing a partial second floor and a small infill that raises the property’s lot‑coverage over the two‑story limit, with board and neighbors saying the design will fit the street and staff finding practical difficulties for a different configuration.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Miami Beach board approves after-the-fact variances for homeowner caring for elderly relative

Board upholds planning director: appeal to reestablish suite‑hotel use at 1330 15th Street denied

Board approves second‑floor addition variance at Lagores Drive; architect says design respects neighborhood