Grove Isle Rebuts Developer’s Moves with Appeals

Grove Isle Residents Association recently reported that the City of Miami’s Zoning Administrator has determined that the latest five story proposal for 4 Grove Isle is consistent with its zoning regulations, known as Miami 21Grove Isle’s lawyers are appealing this administrative decision.  The decision on compliance with current zoning laws is completely independent of the terms of the 1977 Settlement Agreement—the agreement signed by the City to allow development of Grove Isle. 

Meanwhile the developer’s request for a demolition permit for 4 Grove Isle is still pending before the city.  Grove Isle’s Association has reconfirmed that they will also challenge this request.  Demolition without agreement on a final solution for 4 Grove Isle risks substantially damaging values and amenities for residents of Grove Isle if a debris field/bulldozed site is generated without a building permit for planned development.

Grove isle Board Jan 2015

Grove Isle Board Memo Jan 9, 2015 (click on image to open document)

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

7 thoughts on “Grove Isle Rebuts Developer’s Moves with Appeals

  1. Tony says:

    “Demolition without agreement on a final solution for 4 Grove Isle risks substantially damaging values and amenities for residents of Grove Isle if a debris field/bulldozed site is generated without a building permit for planned development.”

    Absolutely… check out what is happening at the developer’s other project on Ponce Circle… 7 years of looking at a debris/bulldozed field…


  2. Joao Crestana says:

    I am not a USA citizen. I live in Brasil, where I have been a developer for the last thirty years.
    So please forgive me for suggesting some ideas. Consider me only the new kid in the block…

    The five story project is very detrimental to the whole Isle, for its anacronism and similarity with a road motel. Also, because it will leave a huge footprint, using a large portion of the ground used today as gardens or similar. All the proprieties in the three buildings will be downgraded and will loose part of their value.

    Moreover, all apartments located on building Three, below tenth floor will have a very substancial loss, because “the full horizon” will be occupied by this awful project: – many buildings along an extension that is disgusting.

    Suppose, by absurd, that this ugly set of mastodont buildings is approved and the developer starts the construction, then there will be no turning point and he will build them eventually!

    Now, I do not want that anything be built in our Isle. I think the infrastructure and the insular format do not support more population.

    However, if the law finally states that Developer has any right to build, lets be intelligent. I suggest that we return to a Unique High Rise with a modern Architecture, with small footprint, even though it may be a little hazardous for a larger scope of the Building Three proprietors. In other words, it may take away only a fragment of the view of all stories, instead of taking away all the view of only the floors below the tenth level, and degrading all apartments in the Isle for the bad quality of project.

    Besides, a High Rise, signed by a modern and competent “starchitect” could even contribute to upgrade the value of our proprieties, provided that we require the infrastructure that we lack, from the Developer. If this is possible, we could require a modernization of the island facilities, including some contribution to the buildings per se, that will have to be adapted to the new legislation in the next year. Our three Buildings come from the eighties, and are outdated, so, they are subject to legal requirements after almost fourty years. Maybe the Developer could be induced to contribute in it, provided that we negotiate somehow.

    Lets turn this crisis into an opportunity. I cannot understand that we will accept such a detrimental court decision that will hurt us so substantially – ones more than others -, without having a wise contingency plan.

    Again, forgive me for the pretension, although being only the new kid in the block. I strongly believe that the danger is bad enough for the three buildings, to justify my boldness.

    Thanks, best wishes.

    João Crestana
    Unit # C 309


    • Jimmy says:

      Joao, Thanks for writing these suggestions AGAIN to us. Just so that we are all very clear — this is not about what we want — its about what is legal. Whatever shape this proposed building might take — there is going to be a negative impact on values.

      The developer is a smart operator and he like you, would very much like a tower ($$$). He is not on the island to be a nice guy and fix our problems. He is here to maximise his profit before he leaves.


      • Joao Crestana says:

        Jimmy, if it is not legal to build in the Isle, we are in accordance, 100%. I do not want that something be built, just like everybody else.

        In any event, thanks to you and to the team for sustaining our position with so many efforts and dedication.

        However, if there is a chance that something is allowed, lets have a CONTINGENCY PLAN. You are mistaken while stating that I like a tower. Indeed, I like best nothing!

        But if it is envisioned (and I do not have a hint on that, I do not know Miami urban law) that something will eventually be approved, it is better that we negotiate. I am not naive to hope that he is a nice guy to fix our problems. But all of us know that we have enough power to negotiate.

        We may require a modern project and we may require infrastructure and we may require some support in the renovations. What is our hedge for that? We are able to make an easier path for the Developer if we agree with favorable terms!!! This is a wise contingency plan, that we would only activate WHEN we are certain that he will have a legal right, IF and when this happens. I would not oppose that he maximize his profits if the law so grants him. The greatest is his profit means the best project he offers, and that may not be the worst for the Isle, if we have enough control on the project by negotiating with wisdom.

        I would trade with him that he share part of his “maximized” profits with our buildings, in exchange of gaining time and less useless litigation, IF this is the case. In exchange we would be enticed to substantial advantages to be negotiated.

        I appologize for disturbing your path AGAIN, but I do think this is important for all proprietors of the island and not only for the higher stories in building Three. We may be letting slip the opportunity and just delayng with expensive litigation.

        Thanks again for replying to my suggestions, and for your dedication in the cause of almost 600 families that are not fully aware of the threaten faced.

        Best wishes.

        Joao Crestana


  3. Guillermo Camacho, Paloalto Estates inc. 407 Building Two says:

    We fully support the policies taken by the Board of Directors, against the ways and means the Developer has acted all along this project. We owners should protect the island the way it has been, that is the reason we invested in it.
    From our point of view, this sad experience, has shown, we should have think in negotiating with the original owner and even with this developer and buy back the property at pro-rate between all owners ( this can be financed by any bank )


    • bfurie says:

      Bravo. This would be the best outcome for Grove Isle. It is inappropriate that a for-profit Club/Spa/Hotel provide the amenities for the non-profit Condo Association, and that all of the residents are required to pay dues to the Club. If the opportunity avails itself, as it has in the past, are the residents prepared to assume this financial challenge?


    • Joao Crestana says:


      I agree with your suggestion. If there is a consensus, we should try to buy back.

      The point is: How to get a consensus…

      Within 500 families, the price would be close to $40 to $60 thousand per unit. If we can get a loan from a bank, operation would be easier. It is 5% of the price of each apartment, roughly.

      The result would be a private island, a very rare privilege, that could increase the value of our units in 10% or even more. It is a good investment.

      Count on my support.


Leave a Reply to Tony Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: