Commission reverses HPB denial for 334 Atlantic (Water Court Villa), approves demolition COA with documentation and time limit

The City Commission of the City of Sunny Isles Beach voted 4–1 to reverse the Historic Preservation Board's denial of a special certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the Water Court Villa at 334 Atlantic Avenue.

In a quasi‑judicial hearing, counsel for the property owners argued the house is structurally unsound and effectively uninsurable, and that applying rehabilitation standards to a demolition request violated due process. "The property is uninsurable," attorney Ian Damelo told the commission, and he urged the panel to consider changed circumstances — including sea‑level rise and recent storm activity — that make repair and elevation impracticable.

Owner George Scholl testified that the family has maintained the home for decades but that the building's construction (described in the engineer's report as unreinforced clay/terracotta masonry and brittle grade beams) prevents a safe elevation or rehabilitation without gutting the structure. "We're not anti‑historic," Scholl said. "But now the house is uninsurable... I don't know what else to do." He and counsel said an engineer concluded the structure would likely fail during a jacking operation and that bringing the building to current code would trigger the "50% rule," forcing a full rebuild.

Planning Director Amy Canales presented staff's recommendation to deny the application, citing the city consultant's view that demolition would not be compatible with surrounding properties and that the applicant had not adequately shown how the structure could be mitigated or adapted to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards where applicable. Canales noted that if the commission chose to reverse the Historic Preservation Board, staff recommended two conditions: completion of full exterior architectural and photographic documentation (including 3‑D laser scanning) submitted to the Florida Division of Historical Resources and the city, and a one‑year time limit to complete demolition with the option for a one‑year extension.

After questions from commissioners about past insurance premiums, recent flood events, interior materials and the engineer's testing, a commissioner moved to reverse the HPB denial with the staff conditions. The motion passed on roll call by 4 votes in favor and 1 opposed.

The commission's action allows the owners to proceed toward a demolition permit under the conditions specified by staff; it does not itself constitute issuance of a building permit. Staff and the owner said they plan to record the exterior documentation the commission required. The decision closes the appellate proceeding for item 7A unless the parties pursue judicial review.

What this means: The city's approval to reverse the Historic Preservation Board's decision permits the property owner to pursue demolition subject to strict documentation and a limited demolition window. Supporters framed the vote as relief for an owner facing what counsel called an effective economic hardship; opponents emphasized the lack of demonstrated compatibility with neighboring historic fabric and the importance of the preservation standards in the city code.

Next steps: The owner may pursue required permitting and must satisfy the documentation and timing conditions the commission attached. Any further administrative or legal appeals would be a separate process.