Board denies appeal to restore suite‑hotel status at 1330 15th Street; planning director's decision upheld 5‑1

The Miami Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 5 denied an appeal from the owner of 1330 Fifteenth Street seeking to restore a nonconforming suite‑hotel use, affirming the planning director’s determination by a 5‑1 vote.

The owner and manager of 1330 Fifteenth Street, who identified himself to the board as the manager of 1330 Fifteenth Street LLC, asked the board to reverse a planning director decision that concluded the property’s suite‑hotel use had been abandoned and converted to a conforming apartment use. The appellant argued the planning director relied on a forged Business Tax Receipt (BTR) application and on a mistaken administrative record.

Appellant’s case: forgery claim and documentary timeline The appellant said he submitted a BTR application on Nov. 18, 2019 and that a different, forged version of the BTR was later used by city staff. He told the board he had reported the alleged forgery to the Miami Beach Police Department on Dec. 5, 2022, and he presented a packet of documents and a chronology to support his claim. “I come before you today to appeal a determination by the planning director that, if upheld, would permanently destroy my business,” the appellant said during his presentation.

Planning director’s position and legal framework Planning director Tom Mooney and city counsel presented the city’s case. Assistant city attorney Nick Kalergis framed the legal question as whether the suite‑hotel use may resume and read the relevant code standards to the board, including that a nonconforming use is lost if it was voluntarily abandoned for more than 183 consecutive days or if it was changed to a conforming use. Mooney told the board the planning department could not independently determine whether a document was forged; staff processed the BTR application that exists in the record and, on that basis, concluded the property’s active nonconforming suite‑hotel use was no longer demonstrably maintained as of the ordinance change that barred new suite hotels in the West Avenue Bayfront overlay.

Public comment Multiple nearby residents and owners who live on Fifteenth Street urged the board to affirm the planning director, describing repeated disturbances, parking and trash problems, and a pattern of transient occupancy at the subject property. Andrew Fiernick, a neighbor at 1326 Fifteenth Street, said the building’s transient occupants had “pumped music through the day and night” and described drug use and trash as recurring problems. Several other neighbors — including Viviana Rodriguez, Ahmed Mustafa, Nicholas Carano and Rafael Querin — described similar quality‑of‑life concerns and urged denial of the appeal.

Board discussion and evidentiary points Board members debated three main lines of evidence: (1) documentary records in the city file (the BTR and associated finance department entries and the certificate of occupancy, CO19‑1320); (2) the appellant’s claim that the BTR used by staff is a forgery; and (3) the operational history and tax renewals for the property. Planning staff noted the property’s administrative file contains an approved change‑of‑use review processed as an apartment BTR in late 2019 and renewed in 2020, and staff said the planning director’s decision relied on the administrative record and the code’s standards for abandonment and change of use.

Motion and vote Board member Mr. Aronson moved to affirm the planning director’s decision and deny the appeal; Miss Malakoff seconded. On roll call the motion passed 5‑1 (yes: Malakoff, Aronson, Accion, Silvers, Goldberg; no: Nagler). The chair announced the appeal was denied.

What the decision means and next steps By affirming the planning director, the board left in place the determination that the suite‑hotel use may not be resumed at 1330 Fifteenth Street under current zoning. The appellant and any aggrieved party retain the right to seek judicial review of the board’s decision in the appropriate court. City staff said they had responded to evidence as received and noted the difference between a suite hotel and other transient lodging types under the city code.

Ending The board completed the hearing and moved on to other business; members also noted a vacancy for a CPA on the board and announced the next meeting on June 2.