Owner alleges harassment and neighbors oppose large variances; Board of Adjustment continues Alton Road case to June 10

The Miami Beach Board of Adjustment on May 1 continued an appeal over ZBA 2501773010, a variance request affecting a two‑story home at 3010 Alton Road, after heated public comment and competing claims from the property owner and neighbors.

Arcee Slipman, who identified herself as the owner, told the board she moved out of the property because of “harassment” and denied allegations in neighbors' filings. "This whole situation has started for a personal reason," Slipman said, adding that neighbors had circulated what she called "false information." She said the artificial turf was installed for medical reasons for household members and offered records and onsite inspections to support the work. "We have all the documentation…we were actually—we're happy to go with one of you guys at any point and pull whatever area you would like so you could see there's no cement underneath," Slipman said.

Neighbors who objected presented a different account. Steven Bogini, who said he lives next door, urged the board to focus on the zoning issues rather than personal claims and said the objection filings document a history of code complaints and short‑term rentals. Bogini criticized the size of the requested changes, characterizing some variances as large: "An 18% increase in lot size and almost 17% increase in square footage…to put a 7‑bedroom, 6‑bathroom house in on a typical size lot in that neighborhood is totally out of character," he said.

Neighbor Eliana Cruz, who filed a written objection, described construction she said occurred quickly after the property's 2022 purchase and told the board she has experienced new flooding that she attributes to the work. "They gutted it…now my property is the only one that gets flooded and it stays flooded for 2 days," Cruz said, and she urged the board to deny the variance unless factual evidence supports the hardship findings required by local law.

Staff told the board it had recommended a continuance to allow additional work between the applicant and staff; the planning staff said it hopes to reach an agreement that would address staff concerns and the neighbors' technical objections. The board discussed limits on repeat continuances and the procedural posture—whether to hear merits now or postpone—and ultimately voted to continue the matter to the June 10 Board of Adjustment hearing so staff and the applicant can respond to outstanding questions and documentation.

What happens next

The continuance means the board will not decide the merits at this meeting. Staff said it will work with the applicant on additional materials and recommendations for the June 10 meeting. Several neighbors warned the board that any approval lacking factual support could be appealed to the courts.

Authorities and procedural notes

During public comment opponents referenced legal standards for hardship and an appeals court decision they called the "Sager case"; the board and staff discussed that variances must meet applicable hardship/practical‑difficulty criteria before approval. Staff reaffirmed that the planning recommendation was to continue to allow further review.