West Miami planning board denies lot‑split variance for 5735 Southwest 12th Street

April 30, 2025 — The City of West Miami Planning & Zoning Board unanimously voted 5‑0 on April 30 to deny a variance that would have allowed CAR Property Investments to split a 10,500‑square‑foot lot at 5735 Southwest 12th Street into two 5,250‑square‑foot parcels with reduced frontage.

The request would have reduced the required frontage from 60 linear feet to 50 and sought a concurrent lot‑coverage variance tied to the proposed split. The denial came after more than an hour of testimony from the applicant and neighbors, and after the applicant withdrew a second related lot‑coverage application.

The denial matters because the board said the application did not meet the standard for a zoning variance. City Attorney (on the record) read the legal test for variance relief, noting the board may grant variances “where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship.” The attorney added that the board’s task is to determine whether that hardship was shown on the record.

Applicant Alfred LaRiviere of 4 Car Property Investments, represented by attorney Carlos Corral, told the board the goal was to create two homes that “conform more with the neighborhood” rather than one large house. LaRiviere described the existing parcel as unusual for the area and said the split would allow him to build two single‑family houses with on‑site parking. He said, “we would like to be able to build up to 2,800 square feet” for one of the proposed homes and that he planned two off‑street parking spaces per lot.

Neighbors opposed the split at the meeting. Resident Leticia Vega presented a packet and a petition and argued the 5,250‑square‑foot lots cited as comparables in the applicant’s packet are “an anomaly, not a precedent,” and said the immediate block contains larger lots that contribute to the area’s character. Vega said some nearby residents “get no light anymore” where small‑lot redevelopment has already occurred, and she warned the variance could set a precedent that would change the city’s built form. Other residents voiced similar concerns: Christophe Hengartner said, “let’s see a little bit of a plan because it just feels crowded,” Daniel Rodriguez said he objected “to overcrowding,” and Marissa Rivera urged the board to consider parking impacts, saying parking “will put a burden on the neighborhood.”

Board members asked detailed questions about setbacks and parking. The applicant agreed to remove an existing carport on the property so the remodeled structure would meet current setback and parking requirements, and said a traffic study showed minimal traffic impact from a single additional home. The applicant described the current house as an eyesore that he and his team are renovating and said splitting the lot was a better alternative than constructing a single, much larger home.

After deliberation, a board member moved to deny the lot‑split variance on grounds that the legal hardship standard had not been met; that motion was seconded and carried in a 5‑0 roll call (Eugenio Gonzales—yes; Diana Rio—yes; Victoria de la Torregan—yes; Alexandra Diaz—yes; Chairman Gustavo Ceballos—yes). The applicant then withdrew the separate lot‑coverage application.

The board’s action means the applicant cannot record a lot split that reduces frontage to 50 feet without either revising the proposal to meet code or filing a new, materially different application. The applicant said he would continue working with city planning on required modifications and building permits for the existing parcel.

Speakers quoted above are included in the meeting record and attributed to their board or public roles. No new approvals or permits were granted for the lot split at this meeting.

Ending — The board moved on to separate sign permits after the vote; staff will retain the petition and public materials submitted by neighbors in the project file for reference in any future application.