Commission approves height variance for 329 Atlantic Avenue, 3–2

The City Commission of Sunny Isles Beach voted 3–2 to grant a height variance for a proposed single‑family home at 329 Atlantic Avenue, allowing the structure to exceed the city’s 35‑foot height limit by roughly four feet.

The variance, filed as application PZ2024‑05 by RC Advisory Team, would permit a third floor to accommodate an elevator and a small physical‑therapy room the applicant said are needed to serve an elderly parent and an adult family member with disabilities. Samuel Shimaev, the property owner, told commissioners he and his family want to live at the home and that the added third‑floor space is required for ongoing at‑home therapy and private care for his brother, who has severe autism.

City planning staff urged denial. Amy, the staff presenter, said the city's land development regulations set seven standards for a variance and that she had not identified a property‑specific hardship that would distinguish 329 Atlantic Avenue from other lots in the R‑1 district. Staff’s presentation noted that changes to Florida building‑code flood elevations (BFE + 1) have required higher finished floors without changing the roof‑height standard, reducing interior volume, but concluded that did not alone satisfy the variance criteria.

Applicant representative Jovan Tillett said the family has lived in the house for more than a decade and described medical circumstances — a recent hospitalization and ongoing physical‑therapy needs for Mr. Shimaev’s father and long‑term care needs for his brother — that he said justify a modest height increase to permit an elevator and therapy space. Neighbor Vitali Pinchuk and other letters of support were cited by the applicant.

Commissioners questioned whether interior ceiling‑height reductions or plan modifications could address the family's needs without a third floor. The applicant told the commission planned floor heights are 10 feet (first), 9 feet (second) and 8 feet (third), and that the third‑floor conditioned area would be a small portion of the total house.

After discussion, a motion to grant the variance passed on roll call, three votes in favor and two opposed. The approval is limited to the variance requested; no building permit or final plan approval was recorded in the public proceedings that night. The commission chair suggested the city review its code to address recurring flood‑elevation and interior‑volume concerns.

The next steps are for the applicant to pursue permit approvals consistent with the granted variance and for city staff to record the decision in the zoning files.