A high-rise development in North Miami has gained strong backing from city officials but has deeply divided the community. Opponents feel overshadowed by new projects that bypass zoning and land regulations, threatening their quality of life. Now, they are suing the city for allowing loopholes to be pushed through using what they call questionable and unfair practices.
NoMi residents have been fighting developers’ attempts to get their way in the past.
For the White House Inn project at 2305 NE 123rd St., developers proposed raising the height limit from 35 to 169 feet. Residents from Keystone Point and San Souci opposed it, citing community concerns. In response, developers compromised, reducing the height to 115 feet to align with nearby restrictions.
Now, a project by Continuum developers at 12000 N. Bayshore Dr. that underwent a two-year process that changed the city’s zoning laws to allow their project to exceed the area’s height and density limits has become local residents’ worst nightmare.
Meanwhile, residents of Mariner’s Bay, a 46-unit, 44-year-old building currently on the development site, have played a key role in influencing the project’s approval. Their support is largely driven by a desire to sell the aging property, avoid steep assessment fees, and relocate. The association has a team of lawyers to represent the community and protect their interests during the project’s approval process.
Hernando Barreto, who lives in the Majorca Towers next door to the development, has opposed the project since its inception, positioning himself as a leading voice for opponents. He is one of two residents suing the city and developers for changing zoning laws to allow taller buildings and increased density in the area.
Barreto stated that the community has endured severe flooding and overwhelming traffic congestion, making these pressing issues key reasons for opposing the development.
The waterfront development is located on a small island within San Souci, forming a triangular area with the Majorca Towers at the southeastern point, where 122nd Road intersects with N. Bayshore Drive and 123rd Street. The neighborhood primarily consists of single-family homes and townhouses.
“Our narrow infrastructure does not accommodate two gigantic new buildings,” said Barreto, adding how the area's drainage system is over 60 years old. With the arrival of “aggressive overdevelopment” he worries about their flooding and traffic issues exacerbating and potentially compromising his building’s safety.
Barreto referenced a Miami Herald report showing how Miami Beach created a height ordinance to allow the ultra-luxury Eighty Seven Park condo tower near Surfside’s Champlain South Towers. The proximity caused infrastructure issues that may have contributed to the latter’s collapse, with developers now facing litigation. Another report highlights the sinking of Miami’s waterfront buildings.
Barreto is concerned that many of the issues contributing to the collapse of the Champlain Towers – such as ground deformation, soil instability, and groundwater changes – will likely arise in his community with the new development.
EVENTS LEADING TO LAWSUIT
The court case challenges the city’s decision to grant developers a conditional use permit (CUP) during a Nov. 26 council meeting for two 22-story residential buildings that exceed current height limits of 115 feet to 238 and density limits of 211 units to 267. It also seeks judicial review over the project's community benefits package, which the petitioners claim excludes the impacted community within a 500-foot radius of the project and is largely misleading.
Most of the project’s support came from Mariner’s Bay and San Souci residents, with some changing their stance after seeing the community benefits package, making it a key factor in the project’s approval.
During the meeting, opponents argued that proposed benefits – such as a new guard gate for San Souci Boulevard half a mile away from the development, improved drainage near the property, a raised seawall, and public waterfront access – were superficial gestures that fail to improve the quality of life for nearby residents.
Developers also included $100 million in unrestricted funds for the city over 20 years as part of their benefits, which residents urged the council to consider.
“Increasing the seawall and improving drainage are required for a new building and its city code, they are not community benefits,” said Barreto. “They are providing access to the bay, but they are really just opening their private garden to the public.”
Although the majority of opponents, including Barreto, could not attend the meeting as it was held just two days before Thanksgiving, they submitted letters to the council beforehand.
“Our voice has been heard but ignored,” said Barreto. “More than 50 letters formally signed by Majorca residents, including addresses, were sent to the council in opposition to CUP. There were another 100 letters signed two years ago when the process started. Deslume and Timothe know we oppose.”
Barreto said that both council members visited the Majorca community and stood with residents in opposing the project’s proposed height increase.
To their surprise, the project was approved with a simple majority vote of 4-0, with District 2 Councilwoman Kassandra Timothe’s recusal from the vote. Mayor Alix Desulme and Councilman Scott Galvin said they voted in favor due to strong public support.
The reasons for Deslume’s unexpected vote of approval enrage those in opposition, who vocalized in the meeting how the majority of support came from unimpacted residents who were incentivized to support the development, leading to what the petitioners describe as a flawed representation of community consensus.
“Mariner’s Bay residents just want to sell their building and leave; they are financially interested and should not count as majority support,” said Barreto, emphasizing how more than half of unit owners listed their residence as a second home, according to public data.
“People in Majorca are primary residents,” Barreto said. “We want to protect our way of life, and we welcome developments that are proportionate and considerable to what is doable in the area.”
Above all, the controversy centers around Timothe’s forced recusal from key votes, including a Sept. 24 meeting that stood as the most consequential. During that session, councilmembers approved a text amendment, drafted by Continuum developers, allowing a height increase to 238 feet in the Bayshore Zone through a conditional use permit (CUP). It passed with a 3-1 simple majority vote, with Desulme opposing.
Under city code, both agenda items required a supermajority vote, but Timothe’s recusal exempted the council from this rule.
During a virtual community meeting, Timothe explained to residents that her recusal was mandated by the city attorney after Continuum developers hired her relative for community outreach during the voting process, creating a conflict of interest.
The lawsuit challenges the legality of the recusals and the approval of the text amendment with a 3-1 vote. Petitioners accuse the developers of orchestrating the recusals to sideline her anticipated opposing votes, strategically lowering the supermajority requirement to push their project forward.
On Jan. 14, the city council approved the development’s final site plan despite pending litigation. However, it cannot receive a building permit until the court case is finalized. Continuum and Mariners Bay attorneys requested that the case be expedited due to its time-sensitive importance, which was surprisingly granted.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The pending litigation ultimately seeks to enforce the city’s land development regulations on the 12000 N. Bayshore Dr. project, aiming to reduce its height and density units. It also targets a development right next door, at 11950 N. Bayshore Dr., where Alta developers are requesting a CUP exemption to build a 24-floor, 96-unit building on a lot restricted to 11 floors and 69 units.
Petitioners also demand an exchange of the proposed community benefits for ones that better address their needs.
The lawsuit condemns the project's "insincere" community benefits package, claiming it primarily serves a small group and was created without input from the impacted community.
“We want development that is responsible and sustainable for the area,” said Barreto.
Barreto defines several community benefits that the area needs. One is a comprehensive traffic impact analysis that includes the White House Inn, 1200 N. Bayshore Dr., and 11950 N Bayshore Dr. developments, all of which will add over 400 new condos to the area.
So far, each development has conducted its own analysis, but Barreto said that has made their impact seem small and inaccurate.
He adds that if the analysis proves to worsen traffic, real measures to alleviate traffic, such as gates installed at the entrance of 122nd Road and N Bayshore Drive, should be implemented. This would prevent external vehicles from cutting through the area to avoid peak-hour traffic on 123rd Street.
With floods potentially worsening after newer developments, Barreto said changing the drainage pipes for the whole area is necessary. Since it’s a city issue, he adds developers’ contributions to sustainability as a community benefit.
The community is also concerned about safety.
“There are no sidewalks in this area, and people are forced to walk on the street,” Barreto said. “If we add more congestion, we need sidewalks throughout the entire area, not just in front of their buildings, as a crucial safety benefit to be able to walk to nearby areas without relying on cars.”
Yet, developers have consistently refused to acknowledge the community benefits mentioned, making these requests the toughest for them to address, said Barreto.
“They say because we oppose the height, they don't want to discuss any benefits with us, which is just this is not right,” he said.
He added how developers have even tried to intimidate him and recounted an incident during the Sept. 24 council meeting where Continuum’s chairman and CEO, Ian Bruce Eichner, personally told him he would “take him off.” Barreto later reported it to the council, and said they immediately ignored the incident.
AN END TO BROKEN PROMISES
Barreto said that even if their proposed community benefits are considered, they could just end up becoming promises with no real weight to them.
“It already happened in Solemia, where developers made promises of community benefits, and then nobody enforced them,” he said.
The Sole Mia development, at the intersection of NE 151 St. and Biscayne Boulevard, is one of NoMi’s largest projects, consisting of two residential towers, a car dealership, and a Costco.
Karen De Leon, a Keystone Point resident and board member for the community’s homeowners association explained how she has attended meetings since the first project’s proposal, when developers made many promises.
“During the developer’s community presentations, we were promised seven contiguous acres of parks accessible to all residents that included playing fields,” she said. “There are three schools nearby where children could benefit from that.
“The other thing that was promised was adding another connection to FIU, detailing how cutting through mangroves was a possibility so they don’t add traffic to 153rd Street.
“Nothing was made ‘til this day,” De Leon said. “It’s been bitterly disappointing.”
Eileen Bicaba, a NoMi resident who has led efforts to create a community benefits coalition that seeks to hold developers accountable, said, “There is no accountability in the system. No one looks to make sure that these developers are giving the benefits that they profess at the time to get these things approved.”
Bicaba explained how the coalition advocates having the community benefit agreements in the books that are enforced by law, requiring developers to work directly with the community on what the benefits should be, and enforcing equitable development.
“Equitable development means city progress shouldn’t involve gentrification or disturbing the quality of life of the people left behind, it shouldn’t be one-sided, like it is now,” she said. “We are flooding. Each development that has come around has flooded us.”
Bicaba’s neighborhood is one of the worst hit by flooding in NoMi. The Citadel Project, located at 13400 NE 3rd Ct, and near her home, has consistently flooded her street since it broke ground in 2018.
“That’s why I became involved in the community,” Bicaba said.
Bicaba believes the city strongly backs newer and larger developments despite community opposition, because "it’s in their best interest to push out older residents" in order to gain more financial input from newer residents and developments.
“I’ve literally had someone from the city’s planning and development board tell me the people that have been here for long don’t bring in as much taxes as the residents in new buildings,” said Bicaba. “This tells me they are willing to trade the existing residents for the new buildings because they can get more money. And that’s appalling.”
She explains how residents who have lived in NoMi pay lower taxes because of the “Save Our Homes” program that puts a cap on homeowners' annual tax increases.
“It’s time for the community to fight back in courts because we do not have a council that listens and cares,” said Bicaba. “They are supposed to be working for the people, but they act like gods.”