The proposed developer of a controversial project lost a lawsuit trying to force a Miami board to vote on its plan — up or down — so the issue could move on to the City Commission.

SPV Realty LC in a lawsuit filed last November asked the court to compel the city Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board to make a decision after delaying a vote five times on the 22-acre Eastside Ridge proposal near the Little Haiti neighborhood.

The board advises the commission, which has final say, but a proposal can't move past the board without its review. The lack of a vote amounts to a pocket veto.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Abby Cynamon on March 17 denied SPV's writ of mandamus petition.

The city said SPV asked for three of the five delays in 2018, Cynamon noted. Although the board in May 2019 approved a special area plan application, it deferred a land-use change, essentially holding up the entire project. The following October the board again deferred, saying the developer had to meet a slew of requirements and submit studies. The city said SPV hasn't fulfilled all the requests, and SPV hasn't disagreed, Cynamon said.

City regulations say the board must "reach a decision without unreasonable or unnecessary delay," but given the circumstances it's not clear the delays broke the rules, Cynamon concluded.

"It is not clear the CZAB's delay in voting was unreasonable and unnecessary," Cynamon wrote in her order.

SPV's Lydecker Diaz attorneys, partner Stephen Johnson and senior associate Shawn Hairston, didn't return a request for comment by deadline.

Johnson in court filings argued the Miami 21 zoning code gives the board a ministerial duty to vote. The petition request was the only way to "safeguard SPV Realty's substantive and procedural due process rights from the PZAB's unreasonable and arbitrary refusal to perform its ministerial duty under Miami 22," Johnson wrote in a January reply to the city's response.

City Attorney Victoria Méndez and senior appellate counsel Kerri McNulty also didn't respond to requests for comment.

In court papers, McNulty argued a board vote isn't subject to the court petition because it's a discretionary act and not a ministerial act as asserted by SPV's attorneys.

Cynamon agreed a board vote is discretionary, but she found that doesn't necessarily mean it has no ministerial duty to vote. But for a ministerial duty to be established, it must be "clearly and certainly established in the law," which the Miami code doesn't do. Board action is subject to a "reasonableness" standard.

SPV wants to build 3,157 residential units, 418 hotel rooms, 97,103 square feet of office space, 283,798 square feet of other commercial space and 5,246 parking spaces in 14 buildings southeast of Northeast 54th Street and Second Avenue.

The development zone includes the Design Place apartments, which isn't officially designated affordable housing but offers low- to moderate-income Miamians a reprieve from rising housing costs.

Some board members are concerned Eastside Ridge will displace Design Place residents and gentrify the area without offering affordable housing. SPV said it will designate 10%, or over 300 apartments, as workforce housing, but opponents say that's not enough.

Other points of contention are the developer's community engagement. At last October's meeting, the board asked SPV to conduct more community meetings with sign-in sheets.

SPV also was told to submit an updated traffic study, examine whether it could better protect nearby neighborhoods and study how Eastside meets land-use policy in the city Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, according to Cynamon's order.

SPV in court filings argued it already met these requirements by turning in a traffic study and holding 37 community meetings.

It's unclear whether SPV will ask for a board vote at the May meetings if they aren't canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic.

A. Vicky Leiva, a Bilzin Sumberg partner who represents Eastside in front of the city but not in the lawsuit, didn't respond to a request for comment.

Read more: