Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition And Property Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Miami Beach historic preservation board continues 1800 Michigan demolition case amid neighbor concerns about neglect
Summary
The Historic Preservation Board continued an application for total demolition at 1800 Michigan Avenue to the July 8 meeting after neighbors raised concerns about active moisture damage and unsecured openings; staff urged voluntary repairs and noted code requirements for vacant properties.
The City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board on June 17 continued an application for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the single‑family house at 1800 Michigan Avenue to the board’s July 8 meeting.
The continuance came after a nearby resident, John Courtney of 1026 Eighteenth Street, said a professional engineer’s certified report showed “multiple sources of active moisture” at the house and said the property owner had made no repairs since receiving that report. “I just ask that the applicant stop the ongoing demolition by neglect before they return to State’s Court,” Courtney said during public comment.
Debbie Tuckett, head of historic preservation for the City of Miami Beach, told the board there are active code‑compliance cases for the property and that the city has urged the owner to pull building permits for repairs. She said the city requires vacant properties to be secured with a metal picket fence and for openings to be boarded or otherwise secured to prevent unauthorized access, and that staff has recommended the applicant address violations and consider temporary measures to prevent moisture intrusion.
Board members noted that because the meeting lacked a full five‑member panel, the board could not take final action on the application; the board’s notice states that approvals for the items on the agenda require five affirmative votes. A motion to continue received an affirmative voice vote from the members present.
The board did not impose conditions at the June hearing; staff described its comments as recommendations and said enforcement and any fine determinations are handled by the city’s special magistrate and building‑permit process. The item will return for formal action on July 8 when the full board is expected to be present.
Meeting context: four board members were present at the June 17 meeting, which the board noted constitutes a quorum for discussion but not for approvals that require five affirmative votes.
