Carol Eannace Respondek often enjoys the view from her backyard along the Biscayne Canal, where manatees sometimes roam among birds and schools of fish – but she fears this home to wildlife could soon be threatened.
Stern Development is looking to purchase an empty 1.08-acre plot of land that lies two houses down from Respondek’s waterfront home in Miami Shores Village. The South Carolina-based company plans to replace the two patches of grass at NE 105th Street and Biscayne Boulevard with a Chipotle, a commercial office building and what most residents are identifying as their biggest worry: a Murphy Express gas station.
(Courtesy of Carol Eannace Respondek)
Miami Shore Village residents with waterfront homes on the Biscayne Canal often see manatees and other wildlife that rely on the waterway to survive.
Before they can get a site plan approved, the developers must convince the village council to modify both the future land use and zoning maps. The land use amendment would generally change the plot’s listed use from multifamily to commercial, while the new zoning designation would specifically identify a gas station as an allowable development.
But a sudden twist of fate may have developers out of gas, much to residents’ delight, but it’s been a long journey that’s not over yet.
A Wave of Advocacy
The issues have been introduced and addressed together, and residents have shown up to public hearings in large numbers to express their opposition.
As a developer and former architect, resident Brandon Spirk has faced soil contamination caused by leaks from gas stations that previously occupied his own potential building sites. Spirk, who lives about three-quarters of a mile away from the proposed site, says it all boils down to one thing: empathy.
“When you start looking at that site, and you know the intensities of what a gas station is – not only the operation of it, but the construction of it – I really feel bad for the people who live right there,” he said.
Respondek is one of those people. She points to how many municipalities have legislation dictating how close a filling station can be built to a residential area. In Santa Rosa County, located in the northwestern part of the state, the two have to be at least 500 feet apart. In some towns in Texas, it’s 1,000 feet. Miami Shores doesn’t have a similar
(Rise News)
Once occupied by a rundown and crime-riddled motel, developers say this land In Miami Shores Village can only be used for another such structure without a zoning change.
restriction.
The main concern is the environmental risk to the canal and neighborhood, both of which are well within 500 feet of the area, but residents also expect higher crime rates, more traffic and late-night noise, and decreased property values as a result of the developer’s plans.
At an Oct. 28, 2021, public meeting, Brad Smith, director of development for Stern Development, and Marissa Neufeld, one of the company’s attorneys, defended the site plan in front of the planning and zoning board, promising ample distance to guard houses and water from harm, and assuring that operators would adhere to environmental guidelines.
One of their main arguments was that switching the land use designation from multifamily to commercial would prevent the construction of another Shores Motel, a dilapidated building that formerly occupied the land and brought crime to the neighborhood.
But the board – along with the residents – was left unconvinced, and voted unanimously against the changes.
Still, the village council has the final say. Upon the first hearing Nov. 16, the council voted 3-2 to bring the issue to a second hearing, despite the planning and zoning board’s recommendation of denial. Mayor Sandra Harris and Councilmember Alice Burch cast the dissenting votes.
(Courtesy of Carol Eannace Respondek)
A view of the empty 1.08-acre lot at the heart of a roiling debate in Miami Shore Village shows neighboring residential homes.
Since then, many residents have come together to research and strengthen their defense before the final vote is made. They’ve sent the council data reporting chemical runoff from underground gas tanks, manatee deaths in Florida and the nearly $489 million in environmental violations that Murphy Oil has accumulated over a span of two decades.
Respondek also created a petition opposing the changes, which at press time was almost at 1,500 signatures. Neighboring village Biscayne Park joined the fight when it adopted its own resolution Jan. 11, 2022, urging Miami Shores not to adopt the proposed amendments.
Not Just a Gas Station
Vice Mayor Daniel Marinberg (who voted in favor of the changes), planning and zoning board director Travis Kendall, and the developers’ attorneys have all reminded residents that the council isn’t voting on whether a gas station gets built. Miami Shores requires a site plan to be submitted alongside a zoning application, although that plan may be abandoned or rejected once the map changes are approved.
Kendall and residents agree that this level of unpredictability is a con in an already risky battle. The proposed zoning designation, labeled as “B-2,” allows for dozens of specific commercial uses, while the current “A-2” designation only allows for single or multifamily homes and motels.
Alternatively, Marinberg, who fears another motel, sees the many potential uses as incentive for a zoning change.
Still, discussion during the first hearing dealt largely with whether the proposed amendments were in compliance with the broader goals outlined in the comprehensive plan, which in part consists of the future land use map.
Kendall, for example, as well as residents, appealed to sections of the plan’s text that identified the protection of
(Courtesy of Carol Eannace Respondek)
Miami Shores Village residents created a sign opposing the proposed gas station, citing environmental risks, crime and traffic as reasons against it.
housing and natural resources as priorities for the village. On the other hand, Ryan Bailine, an attorney for the developer, pointed to sections that directly referred to the 10500 Biscayne Boulevard plot as ripe for redevelopment.
Since that initial five-hour meeting in November, the council has gone down a rabbit hole of text trying to understand the comprehensive plan that is supposed to guide their decision-making for the future of the community, but they’ve run into some problems.
Between the first and second hearing, which was initially deferred on Jan. 4, suspicion and confusion led the council to hire a third party to review the comprehensive plan in search of discrepancies. Calvin, Giordano & Associates, a consulting agency specializing in community development, were to present their findings at the following Jan. 18 meeting.
But when resident Steve Zawadzkas read that the agency’s presentation was being added to the agenda, he felt that it was unnecessary. A search through the state’s public records would show that a concerned resident filed a petition back in 2019, outlining flaws in the comprehensive plan and the process that went into amending it.
(Courtesy of Carol Eannace Respondek)
The potential future use of a plot of land in Miami Shores Village, located on the Biscayne Canal, is raising concerns of gas leaks and chemical runoff into the bay should a gas station be built on the property.
“It is ridiculous and infuriating to me that the village is now spending money to hire consultants to fix this,” Zawadzkas said in an email to Interim City Manager Esmond Scott and other local officials.
The petition revealed myriad issues, including a failure to meet the July 1, 2016, deadline for an amended comprehensive plan to be sent to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). Instead, the village had its first hearing for the new plan more than two years later on Oct. 2, 2018, during which it was approved. Three days later, it was submitted to the state by Kendall, who had been in office for nearly 13 months at the time.
The state responded within two weeks, saying the document wasn’t properly formatted or complete, and that it must be resubmitted for review before it went to a second hearing with the village council. That second hearing was scheduled for March 5, 2019.
But the comprehensive plan that was twice presented to the village council was different than the corrected, formatted version that was reviewed by the DEO in between first and second hearings. In other words, the final plan adopted by the village council got away without ever having been approved by the state.
Critical Lapses in Protocol
Attorney Ronnie Guillen noticed the issue that was beginning to unfold even before the item went through a second hearing, and at first simply urged the council to defer its vote until the election in April 2019, during which four of five councilmember seats were up for grabs. When that time came and the previous village council hadn’t reacted, he filed the petition instead.
His main concern was that the comprehensive plan adopted by the council makes reference to a “restricted commercial area.” This element wasn’t included in the version sent to the state, and was therefore never reviewed by the DEO.
Guillen, however, withdrew his petition later that same year, even after the election. He says he felt the issue would be overlooked yet again. Since then, there was another election in 2021, during which the current council was voted into office.
(BusinessYab.com)
Stern Development is looking to purchase an empty 1.08-acre plot of land in Miami Shores Village near waterfront homes to build a Chipotle, a commercial office building and a Murphy Express gas station.
At the Jan. 18, 2022, council meeting, the presentation by Calvin, Giordano & Associates revealed some additional concerns. Not only was the transition between the 2010 and the 2018 amended comprehensive plans flawed, as shown by Guillen’s petition, but both plans also are internally inconsistent within themselves.
Of particular concern is the fact that the 2018 future land use map looks like an exact replica of the existing land use map – what Marinberg suspected to be an intentional duplication – hinted by the failure to change the legend’s title from “existing land use” to “future land use.”
Whoever’s to blame, Marinberg said, “usurped the legislative authority of the elected councilmembers of Miami Shores, and ultimately the voters – plain and simple.”
During the meeting, Councilmembers Crystal Wagar and Katia Saint Fleur, who made the remaining two votes in favor of the proposed map changes at the first hearing, expressed disappointment in both Kendall and the village’s attorney, Richard Sarafan, for neglecting to bring the inconsistencies – and particularly Guillen’s petition – to their attention.
“I don’t want to be villainized for something when I don’t have the benefit of all the information,” said Wagar at the meeting.
“We knew on first reading that something was awry,” Saint Fleur added. “We were asking a lot of questions.”
Neither Kendall nor Sarafan responded to emails or calls from the Biscayne Times by press time.
But Respondek and Zawadzkas both believe that, if councilmembers felt unprepared in the first place, they should never have made a vote to bring the items to a second hearing.
“I would argue that you should withhold your vote or defer it,” said Zawadzkas. “A yes sounds like you’re for it.”
Worried Residents
The consulting agency says it needs to finish its analysis of the comprehensive plan and help the council revise it in compliance with Florida statutes. It proposed an estimated six-month moratorium for land use and zoning changes, exempting those related to single-family housing, which make up the majority of Miami Shores units.
As a result, the council voted to defer the map changes requested by Stern Development to the Feb. 15 meeting, during which it will first vote on the official ordinance calling for the proposed moratorium.
Bailine says he doesn’t have a comment for what Stern Development will do until the village takes an action on the bigger issue at hand, but at the Jan. 18 meeting, he assured the council that his clients have their own timeline to work by.
In the meantime, residents are calling for transparency throughout the agency’s investigation and the proceedings that will follow.
“The moratorium should be a good thing so that we can get to the bottom of this,” Zawadzkas said, “but it’s only a good thing if they have a town hall or let the residents hear what they’re doing or allow input from the residents.”
But some believe that any changes might actually open the gates for development. Guillen imagines the village may have to regress to the 2010 comprehensive plan, which is itself inconsistent but perhaps only negligibly so, and which already designates the site along the canal as commercial.
Spirk worries a complete reevaluation of the comprehensive plan may affect more than just this plot of land. He’s especially concerned for the golf course located just a few streets west.
“I’m very concerned that, if that were to be done with this particular council – some of which don’t understand the processes, others of which I think many people feel may have intents that don’t match the will of the constituents – that this might chart the future of the community down a path that the community doesn’t really want to go,” he said.
Sarah McSherry, an environmental and land-use attorney who also lives in Miami Shores, says she can’t say which way the moratorium will go.
“No matter what the designation is on the comprehensive plan at the end of this,” she said, “a gas station should not be built on a canal that leads into Biscayne Bay – period.”