Partial Demolition of Miami's Historic Bayside Motor Inn Was Illegal, Lawsuit Says
The motel was supposed to be preserved as it's part of the MiMo Historic District, but instead the city illegally allowed the demolition of half of the structure, the complaint says.
August 06, 2019 at 06:04 PM
5 minute read
Half of a motel in Miami’s MiMo Historic District was illegally torn down for redevelopment, despite an agreement and covenant that mandated the building remains intact, nearby residents claimed in a lawsuit against the city and the building owner.
The light beige, two-story shuttered Bayside Motor Inn comprised two adjacent motels built in the 1940s and 1950s on the southeast corner of Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 52nd Street. In the 1980s a lobby was built connecting them, completing a collection of other low-rise motels along Miami’s busy Biscayne.
The city in 2006 designated the district as historic in an homage to the rich display of MiMo architecture. MiMo is short for the Miami Modern style prevalent after World War II.
The suit brought Monday night by Morningside residents Elvis Cruz and Robert Stebbins marks a new chapter in 15 years of dispute over property owners’ plans to build a new building and residents’ efforts to limit its size.
The plaintiffs claimed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court that the city and property owner 5101 RE CO LLC colluded to break property contracts that purported to resolve the fight, which included a mandate that the whole building remain intact.
The Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board in February 2017 approved the demolition of the motel half on the north lot. The city on June 30, 2017, issued a demolition permit and 5101 RE CO the following month tore down the north half of the building, at 5125 Biscayne.
“This travesty shows, once again, that in Miami we have government of developers, for developers, by developers,” Cruz wrote in an email.
Attorney David Winker, who has experience on both sides of fights involving the city, represents the pair.
The city issued a brief response without addressing lawsuit specifics. “We are reviewing the matter and will defend the city’s position,” Miami Attorney Victoria Méndez said in an emailed statement.
Real estate executive Ricardo Caporal declined to comment on the lawsuit for the property owner, 5101 RE CO. That entity in state Division of Corporations records lists the same Brickell address as Mattoni Group, which Caporal leads as a principal.
Caporal on Tuesday said the two entities aren’t affiliated. Yet, the Mattoni website touts the company’s new mixed-use project at the same site as the motel. The website said there would be a three-story office building with ground floor retail in place of the demolished motel half. The remaining motel half, on the south lot, will be renovated into a restaurant, according to the Mattoni website.
87 Feet or 35 Feet
The suit over the demolition stems from a fight between Morningside residents and a previous owner of the motel property. Atlanta-based Chetbro in July 2004 got a permit from city planning administration allowing it to build a new 63-unit residential project there at eight stories and 87 feet high.
The nonprofit Morningside Civic Association Inc. appealed the permit, leading to a dispute that bounced between the courts and Miami authorities and the city commission for years. At one point a project was approved only if Chetbro shrunk its plan to a maximum of 35 feet in height.
In 2013, the property was bought for $2.1 million by a new company that was led by Avra Jain, a developer known for preserving, renovating and reopening the MiMo motels along Biscayne. Jain famously capitalized on the city’s transferable development rights (TDR), or air rights, that allowed her to sell undeveloped air space above her motels and use the funds to pay for the renovations. The city TDR program targets specifically historic structures and districts.
These changes led to a January 2014 settlement among the city, the new owner and the Morningside neighborhood association. It dictated that Jain would keep the maximum height to 35 feet. In exchange, Jain got to sell the Bayside Motor Inn TDRs at nearly twice their typical value, according to the current complaint.
The settlement gave rise to a September 2014 property restrictive covenant and an August 2014 report on the existing conditions, improvements and maintenance of the property. The lawsuit says these documents mandate the repair and restoration of the entire motel building, not just part of it.
Jain’s company sold the Bayside Motor Inn property for $4.05 million to 5101 RE CO, transferring the settlement, covenant, and improvements and maintenance report on the new owner.
It remains unclear if Jain still is involved with the project redevelopment. The Real Deal real estate publication reported in February 2017 that she was partnering with Mattoni on the project.
Jain didn’t return a request for comment Tuesday and an email to her Vagabond Group Consulting LLC wasn’t answered.
Winker, who represents the residents suing over the demolition, maintained that Jain sold TDRs for the entire Bayside Motor Inn and not just for the southern half of the structure that remains intact. TDRs only are awarded for preserving buildings, he added.
“If this was a case where they had gotten TDRs for the half of the building they didn’t tear down, that would obviously make sense,” he said. “TDRs are awarded for not tearing stuff down, for not developing it. In this case, they use the entire structure for purposes of giving them the credit for the TDRs.”
The complaint asks for damages and injunctive relief, specifically that 5101 RE CO rebuild the portion of the building it tore down. It also are asking the court to prohibit the city from allowing any further property alterations and 5101 RE CO from doing any more site alterations.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 2GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 3Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 4Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 5FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250