Residents voice mixed views on Sunny Isles Beach tower as one warns of leaning building; applicant touts safety agreements

Ken Percy, a resident at 200 Sunny Isles Boulevard, told the City of Sunny Isles Beach commission that a nearby structure “leans 29 inches out of plumb” and urged the panel to require independent due‑diligence paid for by the developer to ensure the proposed project's foundations would not affect neighboring buildings.

The comment came during the public‑comment period for a proposed development on Sunny Isles Boulevard. Percy said the city has already spent "hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees," and warned of "$29,000,000" in potential costs if adjacent foundations are affected; he asked the commission to demand independent testing rather than rely on developer‑commissioned studies.

The public comment period included several supporters of the project. Benjamin Isaac Wolfe of 330 Sunny Isles Boulevard said he backed building taller towers to increase property values and enhance the skyline. Lucas Morales, who said he used to live in Sunny Isles and now resides in Miami Shores, described himself as an aspiring developer and said he supports the project and the Desert Group’s role. An unnamed resident also said the added units would not materially worsen traffic and could improve the area’s appearance.

After public comment closed, the city attorney confirmed the applicant had requested time for rebuttal. An applicant representative introduced Michael Thomas, who identified himself as counsel for the applicant. Thomas said the applicant had submitted two construction cooperation agreements — one addressed to the Armani Casa association and another to Ocean 2 — and described them as "fair" and "reasonable." He said the agreements are form documents the applicant has used for prior developments and include a "very robust safety protocol program that we've committed to perform throughout the course of construction," developed with geotechnical and structural engineers.

No formal vote or motion was recorded during the portion of the meeting in the transcript provided. The commission heard public sentiment both in favor of and wary about the project; a key outstanding item raised at the microphone was whether the city should require independent engineering reviews to assess any risk to adjacent buildings. The applicant said it had negotiated cooperation agreements and committed to safety protocols but did not provide engineering reports on the record during the remarks captured here.

The meeting continued with the applicant’s presentation and the applicant’s counsel describing planned settlement mitigation measures; the record in this transcript ends as counsel was outlining those commitments.