Miami Beach design board denies request to aggregate three Belle Isle lots, sends plan back to applicant

The Miami Beach Design Review Board on April heard public comments and staff recommendations before denying a variance request to aggregate three Belle Isle parcels for a single five‑story home and then postponing the applicant’s revised plan for further redesign and re‑notice.

Staff said the proposal for 8, 9 and 10 Century Lane would combine undersized parcels into a single property and asked the board to continue the item to allow changes after staff critiques. City planning staff described the project as a contemporary single‑family residence with “brutalist influences” but recommended limiting enclosed connector bridges to the first two floors, stepping back a covered rooftop stair enclosure by five feet, and adding additional landscaping and a window to reduce the building’s imposing appearance.

The design team said the owners intend the structure to be a single family home for a household of six and presented the aggregation as necessary to create a cohesive plan. “My client…are expecting their fourth child very soon,” applicant representative Tracy Slavens told the board while asking for feedback on the redesign. Architect Brian Pravda said the three parcels are “undersized parcels” under the code and argued aggregation would bring the combined property closer to code compliance than leaving the lots separate.

Neighbors and condominium residents urged denial. Faye Horton, president of the Vistas Condominium Association, told the board, “What I would like the design board to do is listen to our heart. This is our home. We don't want the quiet enjoyment of our home totally destroyed.” Neighbor Scott Foxman, who lives adjacent to the property, said the proposed structure was “massive” and “not consistent with the neighborhood,” and urged the board to deny the aggregation. Several residents raised traffic, parking and scale concerns and asked for restrictive covenants preventing future multi‑unit conversion.

Board members focused discussion on the lot‑aggregation variance (variance number 3), which the code limits to a maximum of two continuous lots in the Arm 1/RM 1 context unless the project is affordable or workforce housing. Planning staff noted the Arm 1 district is intended for lower‑scale multifamily development and said the three‑lot aggregation increased the potential scale beyond that intent. Commissioner Javier Suarez, speaking during public comment as an elected official, told the board, “I think it’s prudent upon you to deny this project,” reflecting the strong neighborhood opposition.

After debate, Board member Miguel Paez moved to deny the variance to aggregate three lots; the motion was seconded by Board member Alec Lester. The board took a roll call and denied the variance 4–1 (Butakawali voted no; Gilner Nelson, Lester, Lewin and Paez voted to deny). With the lot‑aggregation variance denied, the applicant no longer had the foundation for the submitted design. The board then voted to defer the entire application so the applicant could redesign under the two‑lot or single‑lot scenario and re‑advertise the application; a new hearing date will be set when the applicant is ready.

What the board decided matters because the lot‑aggregation limit is an explicit zoning tool used to limit building scale in Arm 1/RM 1 areas and to preserve neighborhood context. Staff had recommended a continuance to the June meeting to allow changes; the applicant asked for additional time and said it would work with staff and return after re‑design. The board’s denial of the three‑lot aggregation forces a substantive redesign (for either two‑lot aggregation or development on a single lot), and applicants will need to re‑file and re‑advertise revised plans.

Votes at a glance - Denial of variance to aggregate three lots (variance #3): Motion to deny made by Miguel Paez, seconded by Alec Lester; vote to deny 4–1; outcome: denied. - Continuance/postponement of the overall application: motion to defer and re‑advertise passed (no date specified); outcome: postponed pending redesign and re‑notice.

The board’s action does not approve any element of the submitted design. Applicants and their design team said they would return; staff recommended several design changes, including limiting enclosed connector bridges above the second floor, stepping back rooftop elements, and adding landscaping and glazing to soften elevations. The applicant said it would work with staff on revisions and re‑file for a future hearing.