Zoning board clears eight variances for Ken Griffin’s Star Island estate after reconsideration of flood‑elevation request

The Miami Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 7 approved eight variances sought by financier Ken Griffin’s team to assemble four Star Island lots and build a large two‑story family residence, including height exceptions and a driveway width increase. The board’s final action included a contentious vote on a preemptive variance tied to future FEMA base‑flood elevation changes; that item first failed and was later approved 5‑2 on a motion to reconsider.

The application proposes to aggregate four contiguous lots on Star Island into one assemblage of roughly 280,000 square feet (about 6.43 acres) with a 700‑foot lot width, then construct a new two‑story home with two accessory structures and extensive landscape and resilience features. Planning staff recommended approval of the package subject to conditions in the draft order.

Staff planner Rogelio Madden and the applicant’s counsel Michael Larkin walked the board through eight variances the team requested: (1) elimination of the 3‑lot aggregation limit so four lots may be combined; (2) a reduced sum‑of‑side‑yards calculation because accessory structures adjacent to the main house push the combined side setbacks below the code requirement; (3) a three‑foot overall height variance for the main structure; (4) a height‑exception variance for rooftop mechanical equipment (7–8 feet where code allows 5); (5) a similar exception for three skylights that need extra height to avoid views of screened mechanical equipment; (6) a chimney height exception to allow the chimney to terminate above screening; (7) a driveway width variance to permit 25‑foot driveways (code maximum 18 feet); and (8) a preemptive maximum yard elevation variance asking the board to allow the yards to remain at current permitted elevations if FEMA lowers the coastal base‑flood elevation in forthcoming draft maps.

Applicant representatives described extensive design and resiliency measures. Architect Craig Greenberg and design team members described a continuous "fifth facade" roofline engineered to conceal rooftop equipment; materials include ultra‑high‑performance concrete panels, thin steel mullions and planted (green) roofs. Studio MCG’s Jennifer Makani said the project would include four buried cisterns (totaling 200,000 gallons) to capture rainwater for irrigation, about 129,000 square feet of pervious green space, a raised seawall permitted at 7.5 NGVD (from 5 feet NGVD), and mechanical systems elevated and commissioned for flood resilience.

The applicant said the design prioritizes expansive setbacks (the team cited minimum setbacks of about 70 feet in many locations), substantial landscape buffering and a non‑active rooftop. The applicant’s representative Cason Carter described Griffin’s philanthropic and community investments in South Florida as context for the project, and the team provided nine letters of neighbor support and in‑person outreach; Jerry Roland, speaking for the Miller family to the south, told the board the Millers “are in more very supportive of the project.”

Board members asked detailed procedural and policy questions about the lot aggregation precedent and the unusual preemptive maximum‑yard‑elevation request. Several commissioners expressed concern about creating a new precedent for preemptive variances that respond to regulations set by other agencies (in this case FEMA). Planning staff said the city relies on FEMA’s base‑flood elevations when calculating maximum yard elevations and that the proposed variance would avoid the need for applicants to return if FEMA adopts new maps before the project completes permitting.

The board voted each variance individually. Most variances carried with one recorded dissent on a few items (recorded in the meeting audio as one nay), and one variance (the driveway width) passed unanimously. The preemptive maximum‑yard‑elevation variance initially failed after a close vote (4–3, short of the five yes votes required for a variance), prompting a motion to reconsider. On reconsideration the board approved that variance by roll call, 5–2 (Yes: Goldberg, Davis, Marmeli, Silverman, Silvers; No: Krennick, Nagler). The minutes on the audio record show the board then instructed staff to finalize the draft order with conditions.

The board’s approvals allow the applicant to pursue building permits consistent with the conditions and draft order; building permits and final construction remain subject to standard plan review, permitting conditions and any interagency requirements (including FEMA and federal compliance where applicable).