Miami Sued by Eastside Ridge Developer After Five Planning Delays
The proposed 22-acre project has been stalled with the city planning board for more than a year in part over concerns about affordable housing and gentrification.
November 20, 2019 at 02:57 PM
6 minute read
The developer of the proposed Eastside Ridge sued Miami over a city planning board's repeatedly delayed vote on the controversial project near Little Haiti.
SPV Realty LC asked the court to compel the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board to vote on a final land-use change. The developer argued in its one-count Miami-Dade Circuit Court complaint that the Miami 21 zoning code requires the board to vote, regardless of whether it's to approve or deny.
SPV doesn't need the board's approval — just a vote — to move on to the City Commission. The planning board serves an advisory role to the commission, which has the final say and can reject board recommendations. But the lack of a vote equates to a pocket veto.
Eastside Ridge would have 3,157 residential units, 418 hotel rooms, 97,103 square feet of offices, 283,798 square feet of other commercial space and 5,246 parking spaces in 14 buildings on 22 acres southeast of Northeast 54th Street and Second Avenue.
The developer submitted its proposal in summer 2016, and the city planning staff recommended approval. The project moved to the planning board in July 2018, and the board delayed decisions five times since then.
SPV considers the inaction a "deliberate refusal to approve or deny the application, despite the requirements of Miami 21 that it do just that," Lydecker Diaz partner Stephen Johnson wrote in the Nov. 1 complaint. He declined additional comment.
City Attorney Victoria Mendez said the city will address the issue in court, but she didn't address lawsuit specifics.
"We look forward to resolving this matter in court," she said by email.
The Eastside Ridge developer plans no affordable housing even though opponents say the project will gentrify the area.
It's asking for a special area plan, or SAP, that under Miami 21 allows developers of over 9 acres to build bigger projects in exchange for providing public benefits such as affordable housing and parks.
Eastside applied for the SAP and a comprehensive plan amendment to allow the land-use change.
The planning board reached a tie vote May 15 on the SAP. The board postponed voting on the land-use change until Oct. 16 and then deferred again until February.
The vote timing was on the minds of planning board members at May and October meetings.
"I don't know whether we should deny this or defer it," board member Anthony Parrish said in May. "If we defer it, they've already waited three years. But if we deny it it could go to the commission and the commission may say, 'This looks like a pretty good plan. Let's approve it.' "
Board member Miguel Soliman at the same meeting questioned emergency response issues, arguing the developer should designate space for a fire station. He also questioned community outreach, but SPV said it held 37 community meetings.
" I will never vote for this, and what you'll get out of me is a deferral for three months, six months, eight months. You are certainly not going to get a denial out of me. I am not going to let this go to commission," Soliman said. "I am going to keep it around until these good folks here get what they deserve. I cannot allow for our communities to be raped in this manner."
The May meeting was a "sham" proving the board has no intention of moving the project forward, Johnson said in the complaint.
Controversy
The project would wipe out the Design Place apartments south of Little Haiti. It's known for cheaper rents for moderate-income tenants.
The Eastside developer has vowed 10% of the apartments, or over 300 units, will be workforce housing, but opponents say it's not enough.
The developer maintains Eastside would help alleviate the affordable housing crisis by favorably tipping the supply-and-demand balance.
Attorney A. Vicky Leiva, who represents Eastside in front of the city but not in the lawsuit, urged the board to vote in May, saying the developer's due process rights were at stake.
"We implore you. Three years. It's necessary," sad Leiva, a partner at Bilzin Sumberg in Miami.
The lawsuit notes Assistant City Attorney Amber Ketterer, who advises the planning board, cautioned the board that the code calls for a vote "without unreasonable and unnecessary delay."
SAPs Overhaul
The lawsuit comes amid mounting criticism of SAPs as a whole.
Miami activist attorney David Winker in a Daily Business Review opinion piece said SAPs increasingly are targeting struggling communities where developers can accumulate inexpensive property. This results in displacement of residents, especially from neighborhoods that sit on higher ground and are more protected from sea-level rise.
The Magic City Innovation District in Little Haiti is another controversial SAP that commissioners approved this summer despite neighborhood opposition.
Another approved SAP in the area is the expansion of Miami Jewish Health Systems' campus across from Eastside.
Critics have called for a SAPs overhaul, and the planning board may be on a path to look at changes.
Planning board member Adam Gersten put a SAP discussion item on Wednesday's agenda.
Parrish in May said the city shouldn't be looking at SAP applications individually as they come up, especially since many affect the same area near Little Haiti.
"You must consider the effect of all SAPs that are impacting the neighborhood. You can't look at them in isolation," he said. Some of the approved SAPs "are all squeezing the neighborhood beyond belief."
Related stories:
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
- 1Consumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
- 2Ex-Schnader Partner Nears Settlement in Misappropriated Comp Class Action
- 3The Increase in Artificial Intelligence-Related Securities Class Actions
- 4Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
- 5Jefferson Doctor Hit With $6.8M Verdict Over Death of 64-Year-Old Cancer Patient
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