[{"_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",6566284,"mediaKeyId","3206132-35492f5f9e8b612415cad62338231b4b","parentId",3206132,"title","Miami HEP board defers decision on modern home at 5810 N. Bayshore after neighbors raise setback, design and easement concerns","audioSeconds",3468,"startMs",898000,"endMs",4366000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206132-35492f5f9e8b612415cad62338231b4b&start=898&end=4366","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206132-35492f5f9e8b612415cad62338231b4b/thumbnail_898000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6566284/Miami/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Miami-HEP-board-defers-decision-on-modern-home-at-5810-N-Bayshore-after-neighbors-raise-setback-design-and-easement-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566284-9efeca119a744d0b55997e7fc212aab1/orig.mp4?Expires=1776069807&Signature=klsUpsRwrHlwO3e2Hr0BUfR5MHPx1eg2fwQsri~bZcDI1mYVY-IGCh5te1K45GYwZjHRkp9KVszwFgoDJqSgYyjnuPtDkgAh5U4zz77CVG-bJrvvxjn0-ry1wxsg4exKUfpDpdoRl6GN7J4PbmxMkFB-dt8OeDCQyV0TqKiiaG0dEgj1NkKqjWWL-WYVeAKiC9GvJlV6T1WO~Rk5HJ8yyw2I6-5UHElLsJZHWQHodX0Cu7~VrtA1VqEtuTenFwuUJra4rnjpHDBYMwtuz1OD3ksc6MS38ChLv6atGKpuAHuQ2wqgDVwgVXw9OIC549ZP4FJwfB5YnL64IebtSde-WA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Miami, FL","date","2025-05-06T14:30:00Z","article","The Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board on a unanimous vote continued a decision on a special certificate of appropriateness for new construction at 5810 North Bayshore Drive, saying the applicant should meet with neighborhood reviewers and address staff and neighbor concerns before the board votes.

The developer, Elliot Minsky, and his architect, David Scott Troutman, had presented plans for a modern two‑story house on a vacant corner lot in the Morningside Historic District. HEP staff recommended approval with conditions — including aligning the side setback along Northeast 50th Eighth Street to the neighborhood’s dominant 25‑foot pattern and modifying second‑floor openings — but neighbors objected to the design, proposed setbacks, and the effect of site features such as a large pool deck on a recorded private easement.

Staff and neighbors: why it mattered

Staff told the board the application “partially complies” with Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code and Secretary of the Interior standards but recommended multiple conditions to reduce the project’s impacts on the district’s rhythm of spacing and openings. Christina Jong, historic preservation planner, read the analysis and recommended approval with conditions including specific façade changes, window treatments and a 25‑foot setback along the side street.

Neighbors said the design and siting would harm the block’s character and raised property‑rights and privacy concerns. Elvis Cruz, a longtime Morningside resident and preservation advocate, cited the City Code’s historic‑compatibility language and the staff analysis and urged the board to deny the application until it conformed to the district’s setbacks and window rhythms. Laurent Dreyfus, the owner of the property immediately west of the site, told the board he has a county‑recorded private easement from 2006 that, he said, gives him beneficiary rights to 10 feet into the adjacent parcel and that the proposed pool deck and landscaping would encroach on those rights.

Neighbors also flagged design details they said were inconsistent with prior approvals in the district. Andrea Dreyfus, a nearby homeowner, said the plans showed expansive clear glass without muntins and listed the house’s roof height inconsistently — she said the plans listed 35 feet NAVD where neighboring heights are about 27.6 feet — and asked the board to require removal of a proposed rooftop AC enclosure that would add another 3.5 feet of height. Other neighbors pressed for protections for mature palms and for clearer survey information about easements and utility placements.

Applicant response and changes sought

Architect David S. Troutman said the design team had worked with staff for more than a year and had reduced or altered elements in response to comments. He argued there was precedent on North Bayshore Drive for corner lots with smaller side setbacks and said the proposed first‑floor setback was allowed by zoning with a second‑floor pullback. Troutman also said his team had revised materials (switching louvers from wood to an ornamental metal valence) and that they did not believe the porthole bathroom window or French doors recommended by staff fit the design.

Board: request for more neighborhood outreach

Board members pressed the applicant to meet with the Morningside Civic Association and immediate neighbors before the board votes. Several members said outreach to the Civic Association and to adjacent property owners could resolve routine conflicts over windows, setbacks, landscaping and mechanical screening.

The applicant asked for a continuance and said he would work with the neighborhood and resubmit revised drawings. The board set a date certain and continued the item to the July 1 meeting; the applicant agreed to waive the 60‑day requirement so the hearing could return without new noticing. The continuation was approved by roll call with unanimous support from board members present.

Why this matters going forward

The dispute illustrates common issues in Miami historic districts: how to balance modern design language against established setback patterns and window rhythms; the role of neighborhood review committees; and the technical limits of local review where private easements, utility easements and flood‑elevation constraints intersect. Neighbors asked the HEP board to require clearer surveys and to confirm private easements and utility encroachments before new construction moves forward.

What’s next

The applicant told the board he will meet with the Morningside Civic Association and neighbors and resubmit revised plans for the July 1 meeting. The board’s staff will expect revised materials, window studies, and a clearer landscape and easement plan as part of the resubmittal.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Miami, FL - Historic Environmental Preservation Board-Regular Meeting - May 06, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board on a unanimous vote continued a decision on a special certificate of appropriateness for new construction at 5810 North Bayshore Drive, saying the applicant should meet with neighborhood reviewers and address staff and neighbor concerns before the board votes.","taxTitle","Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida","taxId",2890,"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},6566274,"Votes at a glance: Miami HEP Board actions on five preservation and site‑work items",1235,6919000,8154000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206132-35492f5f9e8b612415cad62338231b4b&start=6919&end=8154","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206132-35492f5f9e8b612415cad62338231b4b/thumbnail_6919000.jpg","/articles/6566274/Miami/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Votes-at-a-glance-Miami-HEP-Board-actions-on-five-preservation-and-sitework-items","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566274-3b2b76850bde405079a8d3a045b9233e/orig.mp4?Expires=1776069807&Signature=aWLq~0mZLhtkgCmHTqnE~9~gzKNYIY17gmrKBqQ5r-Iszdyu1CmKLbD27jhx43GbzJOoK9Iuf~wUajNHmpZDJpYAdOiCAc~oY1Qjbr8eJkSKE5x0BxlWR63CZ7s7~zvHhrktGMrw55xNVsXCl0c0DOOY~z6yaHt0r2pMkc1wY5Fi7WYrpjvgWA86kQb1H8N8XQxUZLX65WYzmAk3~70c1Xv5EebI14XENQYTD7FIDj5LHII3QYPuf73o0-8qZDXqlBUmRSf-KD5TdvJX949yoPRVsFrPmzz80VeFr0pvMXe2Q6trDRg6KcazwWzzv~DblXZH4gjb0z0lbPcoLKlXYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","What the board decided (quick list)

- Item 1 — 5810 North Bayshore Drive (Morningside): Continued to July 1 at applicant’s request; applicant waived 60‑day requirement to return. (Outcome: continued; unanimous roll call)

- Item 2 — 3939 Leafy Way (Environmental Preservation District #74): Deferred to July for revised arborist/landscape plan and Environmental Resources coordination. (Outcome: continued; unanimous roll call)

- Item 3 — 467 NE 50 Eighth Street (after‑the‑fact fencing; Palm Grove Historic District): Preservation staff recommended denial of an after‑the‑fact 6‑foot, horizontally‑boarded fence that exceeded guideline opacity and height; the board denied the special certificate of appropriateness. (Outcome: denial; unanimous roll call)

- Item 4 — 23 NE 40 Sixth Street (Buena Vista East; second‑story addition): Staff recommended partial compliance with Chapter 23 standards but requested conditions to preserve historic fenestration language and articulation; the board approved the special certificate of appropriateness with staff conditions and additional clarifications on fenestration and deck materials. (Outcome: approval with conditions; unanimous roll call)

- Item 5 — Salvation Army Citadel (49 NW Fifth Street; individually designated resource): Staff recommended approval with conditions, including restoration of historic materials, a restudy of a proposed green wall and a paving treatment compatible with the historic facade; the board approved the proposal with the stated conditions but directed refinement of design details. (Outcome: approval with conditions; unanimous roll call)

- Item 6 — 4660 Fifth Street (Palm Grove Historic District; accessory structure and site improvements): Staff recommended approval with conditions (including removal of chain‑link fencing and limited front‑yard tree selection); the board approved with those conditions. (Outcome: approval with conditions; unanimous roll call)

Vote details and what to check next

- Unanimous roll calls: For all final votes and continuances recorded, the roll call shows unanimous support among board members present (Julie O'Dell, Luis Brito y Muñoz, Hugh Ryan, Najeeb Campbell, Jordan Trachtenberg and Dr. William Hopper).

- Conditions: Every approval except the denial carried staff‑recommended conditions about materials, window treatments, and inclusion of the resolution in the master permit set. Applicants must submit manufacturers’ brochures, window studies and detailed materials pages at permitting.

- Deferred items (Items 1 & 2): The board asked applicants to meet with neighbors/civic associations (Item 1) or coordinate with Environmental Resources and reduce mitigation payments by adding larger caliper native trees (Item 2). Each was continued to the July meeting.

Why these outcomes matter

The board’s votes made two things clear: (1) the board will enforce design expectations in historic districts by requiring specific fenestration, setback and material changes; and (2) the board will give applicants a chance to revise controversial proposals if they demonstrate community outreach or technical remediation (for example, revised mitigation plans or easement surveys).

Next steps for applicants and the public

Applicants with approved items must include staff‑requested materials in the master permit set at permitting. For deferred items, applicants should schedule neighborhood and staff meetings, collect required technical reports (surveys, arborist studies, easement records) and resubmit before the July meeting. Citizens should monitor the HEP agenda and staff reports for the next meeting to review resubmitted materials.

","At the hearing the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board took formal votes on six agenda items: it continued two controversial site projects to July and rendered final rulings on four other agenda items (one denial, three approvals), each with staff‑recommended conditions.",{"_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},6566279,"Miami HEP board defers decision on tree removals and site plan at 3939 Leafy Way after neighbors seek more canopy protection",2497,4402000,6899000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206132-35492f5f9e8b612415cad62338231b4b&start=4402&end=6899","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206132-35492f5f9e8b612415cad62338231b4b/thumbnail_4402000.jpg","/articles/6566279/Miami/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Miami-HEP-board-defers-decision-on-tree-removals-and-site-plan-at-3939-Leafy-Way-after-neighbors-seek-more-canopy-protection","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566279-aff73b3d3f33e4decbf7379fc1848bde/orig.mp4?Expires=1776069807&Signature=Bh3Ju99lekRzbdb22e1YFDXp9D5ITlm~r5T2pAPEtocmPoECznxZqcQLOjG~V0SIQrcRpYnJ2AOwyWYyApL~REQmlycAeoRB-Xgst5YZRtYLBCbWOfFg9OtyEpsV6FDGN3j12Xz7jm9F~KTIZ4LxpbObUxEC3RdtBBZDEE4ttGEOqGeRa4Hm1YnwXI0XlY2XnHcEbgOxjOuXzmZKL7dqh6sRnKFxixRBbVQuLUgbZP7YUs1fbeVVmwbhUHJM26t3F2c82Kxi0M3MTC6SFPsJuB4UzuqpjMQBb7hz5r9auJ2iSYa4buZp~Ap~gn2yG7-wJ9c5ycfxU8BGqJJJS7Bhnw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board on a unanimous vote deferred a special certificate of approval for tree removal and site work at 3939 Leafy Way, citing neighborhood concerns about canopy loss and the need for additional review by environmental resources staff.

Applicant updates and the staff position

The applicant’s team, represented by attorney/representative Carlos Diaz and architect/landscape consultants, told the board they had revised an earlier plan after meeting with staff and neighbors. They said they reduced the number of royal palms proposed for removal from 14 to 6 by relocating or preserving eight on site where feasible, and proposed to add 17 native trees and two street live oaks increased from 4‑inch to 6‑inch caliper to produce a larger, longer‑lived canopy.

Staff said the application is consistent with Environmental Preservation District No. 74 rules where the proposals replace many non‑native, exotic palms with native tree species. Adrian Espinosa, preservation planner, noted the revised planting plan and said staff had not yet had time to coordinate the newest information with Environmental Resources.

Neighbors sought stronger preservation and clearer mitigation

Nearby residents testified that the property currently provides a lush canopy to the block and that earlier submittals appeared to remove large numbers of trees across the site. Residents asked how many mature trees would remain after construction and called for more on‑site planting rather than payments to the city’s tree trust fund.

Douglas O’Keefe (3975 Leafy Way) pressed for clarity on final tree counts and the amount of open space after construction. Landscape architect Robert L. Martin and the project arborist described the plan: roughly 71 trees proposed to be removed (many small, non‑regulated palms), 21 new trees proposed on site and six new palms; in other words, a net increase in native canopy species though many removed specimens were small non‑regulated palms that do not count the same under the code’s mitigation calculation. The arborist said several of the royal palms originally proposed for relocation were poor candidates for transplanting because of root limitations and proximity to other structures.

Mitigation, street trees and next steps

The team told the board that, with the larger caliper live oaks and the added native planting, the mitigation payment to the tree trust fund could fall from earlier figures (strewn through the submittal materials) to about $11,000–$13,000. Board members questioned whether the footprint of the house and drainage fields limited places where large canopy trees could be planted and asked the applicants to explore further design adjustments to increase on‑site canopy.

The board deferred the item to July to give staff and the applicant more time to coordinate with Environmental Resources, to refine the planting plan and to reduce mitigation payments by maximizing onsite large‑caliper trees where feasible. The motion to defer passed by unanimous roll call.

Why it matters

Leafy Way is inside an Environmental Preservation District valued for its canopy and native tree cover. The board’s deferral reflects the challenges of reconciling lot‑level redevelopment, septic/drainage and the policy aim of preserving or restoring tree canopy synthetically by replacing many small, non‑regulated exotic palms with fewer, longer‑lived native trees.

What’s next

The applicant will work with staff and the neighborhood to submit a revised landscape and mitigation plan for the July meeting, including exact counts of removals and replacements, updated mitigation calculations and explanation of constraints created by drainage fields and other site utilities.

","Property owners seeking to redevelop 3939 Leafy Way in Coconut Grove revised their tree removal plan after staff review and neighbor concerns. The board deferred final action to July so applicants can refine the landscape mitigation, reduce mitigation payments and explore design changes to keep more canopy on the site.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Miami HEP board defers decision on modern home at 5810 N. Bayshore after neighbors raise setback, design and easement concerns

Votes at a glance: Miami HEP Board actions on five preservation and site‑work items

Miami HEP board defers decision on tree removals and site plan at 3939 Leafy Way after neighbors seek more canopy protection