Neighborly Dispute in Miami Springs – Where’s the backyard?

July 3, 2025

1542

Miami Springs resident Michelle Ferreira is fighting City Hall and claiming that the City of Miami Springs allowed Michelle’s neighbor to encroach beyond the backyard’s setback limits. In simple terms, Ferreira claims her neighbor constructed too close to her property line.

The City of Miami Springs says, it’s not a backyard, but instead it’s a side yard and thus the addition fits within the side yard setbacks.

So, what’s a side yard and what’s a backyard?

Let’s look at the home in question. As you can see, the front door of the home faces Esplanade Drive. The address of the home is 200 Esplanade Drive. So, the front must be Esplanade, right?

Well, according to the City of Miami Springs, the front of a corner lot is the side of the corner lot that has the shortest length. So according to the City of Miami Springs, the front of the lot should be Falcon Avenue.

But wait, it gets more complicated. Because the shortest distance of that property used to be Esplanade when the home was originally built. You see, the property used to be on a larger lot. However, in the 1980s, the lot was subdivided. See the subdivision in the 1984 graphic below. The property in question is highlighted in red.

Below you can see the 1984 Waiver of Plat of 300 Falcon Avenue and 200 North Esplanade Drive in Miami Springs. As you can see, the home on Esplanade continued to face towards Esplanade.

Visually, anyone who passes by the home will think the front of the home is Esplanade.

In the documents prepared on behalf of the neighbor on Falcon Avenue it states:

Importantly, as part of the 1984 Waiver of Plat Approval, the Building Official determined that the yard between the Esplanade House and the Falcon Property was a rear yard, requiring a 25’ rear yard setback. This is evident from condition (3) above that “side” yard setbacks were required along the Esplanade House’s south property line and the property line facing Falcon Avenue. Condition (3) of the 1984 Waiver of Plat Approval thus made clear that the yard along Esplanade Drive was the front yard and the yard facing the Falcon Property was the rear yard.

The Building Official’s determination was fully consistent with the physical orientation of the Esplanade House — at all times since its construction in 1947, the front of the Esplanade House has faced Esplanade Drive and the rear has faced the Falcon Property.

Moreover, the Building Official also reiterated in the 1984 Waiver of Plat Approval that no building permit for the Falcon Property could be issued until all encroachments on the Esplanade Property into the required setbacks had been removed. At the time, the Esplanade Property was improved with the Esplanade House and an accessory structure located in the rear yard of the Esplanade Property, near the property line that divides the Esplanade Property from the Falcon Property. Thus, to ensure that the Esplanade Property provided a fully conforming rear yard setback of 25 feet between the existing residence and the Falcon Property, the Building Official required that the accessory structure be demolished.

The City Building Official advised the owner that if it wanted to retain the accessory structure, the owner would have to appeal to the Board of Adjustment:

The owner did not appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Instead, the owner accepted the Building Official’s determination and proceeded to demolish the accessory structure to provide a conforming 25- foot rear yard setback (Exhibit 3 attached hereto):

Section 150-002(18) of the Code provides that “[f]or corner lots, the lot front shall be the narrowest portion abutting the street, unless determined otherwise by the planning and zoning director.” In the 1984 Waiver of Plat Approval, the Building Official determined that the front of the Esplanade Property is the portion abutting Esplanade Drive. Further, Section 150-002(85) provides that “[t]he rear yard shall be that portion of the lot that is opposite and most distant from the front yard.” Therefore, when the Building Official determined as part of the 1984 waiver of plat that the Esplanade Drive frontage was the “front” of the Esplanade Property, he necessarily determined that the yard nearest the Falcon Property is the “rear” yard, because that yard is “opposite and most distant from the front yard.”

Once the accessory structure was demolished, the Esplanade Property achieved the following setbacks, which complied with the R-1C requirements:

After all the conditions to the 1984 Waiver of Plat Approval had been met, the City issued a building permit in 1985 for the construction of a new residence on the Falcon Property.

ILLEGAL ESPLANADE PROPERTY ADDITION

Our review of public records reveals the following facts. In August 2021, the Esplanade Property was sold to the current owners, Jovany Jimenez and Ambar Sara Preval (together, “Esplanade Owner”). On December 21, 2021, the Esplanade Owner submitted an application for a building permit for the construction of a new addition at the rear of the Esplanade House and overall remodeling of the existing structure. As required by the City, the Esplanade Owner completed and filed with the City a project data form with a side-by-side table comparing the required setbacks and area calculations to those that would be provided after the addition was constructed.

In completing the data form, the Esplanade Owner erroneously calculated the setbacks as if the Esplanade House fronted Falcon Avenue instead of Esplanade Drive, alleging that the yard between the Esplanade Property and the Falcon Property was a “side” yard. But, in light of the 1984 Waiver of Plat Approval, the Esplanade Owner knew or should have known that it is a rear yard, requiring a 25-foot setback. In fact, in various documents submitted with the permit application, the Esplanade Owner admitted that the proposed alterations and improvements would occur in the “rear” of the Esplanade House, facing the Falcon Property (Exhibit 4 attached hereto).

Compelling Argument

The neighbor on Falcon Avenue has a compelling argument. But they have a big problem. The neighbor on Esplanade already built the addition with the City’s approval.

It’s difficult to fault the homeowner on Esplanade for an addition when they took out the appropriate permits and the City of Miami Springs approved the addition.

The question here is did the City of Miami Springs screw this up? If so, they’re never going to admit it. If the City admits that they screwed up they’d have to pay to correct the situation somehow. Furthermore, I find it hard to fault the neighbor on Esplanade if they pulled all the required permits and received approvals from the City of Miami Springs.

The neighbor on Falcon filed an appeal with the City Council. Her appeal was denied by the City Council in a 5-0 vote.

I don’t think anyone was surprised by the vote because a vote to the contrary would cost the city, and thus the taxpayers a lot of money in order to correct the situation.

However, this may not be over, as this case may be headed to court…stay tuned.