10000 / 10004 E Bay Harbor Drive · Folio 13-2227-001-1610 · Lots 19 & 20, Block 7, PB 46-5 · 22,876 SF (0.5252 ac) · RM-2
Every quotation below is verbatim from the Town of Bay Harbor Islands Code of Ordinances, the Town Charter, the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser roll, or the Florida Statutes. Nothing is paraphrased and nothing is taken from the feasibility study. Prepared 29 August 2026.
| Claim | Count | Verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Base by-right | 18 | ✓ Number holds | Right answer, wrong rule. There is no “round-up rule.” |
| 2. Town Council max | 32 | ✓ Number holds | But not a by-right ceiling. Requires purchased TDRs. |
| 3. Platted double-lot | 34 | ✗ Not in the code | Code computes units as acreage × density, not per lot. |
| 4. Condo-hotel keys | 37 | ✗ Not in the code | RM-2 has no hotel clause. Hotels are not a permitted use. |
| 5. Dual-key doors | 40 | ✗ Not in the code | Each independent door is a dwelling unit by definition. |
| 6. Live Local max | 42 | ✗ Wrong basis | 80 DU/ac is RM-3 and B-1, not RM-2. Reachable only via Live Local. |
Click any row to jump to the proof.
RM-2 is subsection (B2) of Sec. 23-11, not (b) or (c). Its density clause reads, in full:
“Maximum allowable density. The maximum allowable base density is 34 dwelling units per acre. The maximum allowable overall density (includes base density/TDR units) is 60 dwelling units per acre. Partial units below one-half are rounded down to the nearest whole number. Individual project densities may be increased on a case-by-case basis only through the process described elsewhere in Chapter 23.” Town Code Sec. 23-11(B2)(11)
The same clause exists in three other districts with different ceilings. This is where the study’s stray numbers came from:
| District | Base | Overall (with TDR) | Hotel rooms clause |
|---|---|---|---|
| RM-1 — multi-family, waterfront — 23-11(B1) | 34 DU/ac | 70 DU/ac | Yes — 70 rooms/acre |
| RM-2 — multi-family, non-waterfront — 23-11(B2) | 34 DU/ac | 60 DU/ac | None. No hotel clause exists. |
| B-1 — business — 23-11(C) | 34 DU/ac | 80 DU/ac | Yes — 70 rooms/acre |
| RM-3 — multi-family — 23-11(D) | 34 DU/ac | 80 DU/ac | None |
The study’s “70 keys/acre” is the RM-1 and B-1 figure. Its “80 DU/acre ceiling” is the B-1 and RM-3 figure. Neither is RM-2’s.
Site acreage, used in every calculation below:
The number is right. The rule cited does not exist.
Claimed rule: “Sec. 23-11(c) (34 DU/Acre) + Chapter 23 Round-Up Rule.”
✓ 18 units is correct.
The study quotes the code as stating: “Fractions below 0.50 round down, and fractions of 0.50 or greater round UP to the nearest whole unit.” The second half of that sentence is not in the code. The complete rounding language in Chapter 23 is one sentence:
“Partial units below one-half are rounded down to the nearest whole number.” Town Code Sec. 23-11(B2)(11) — the entire rounding provision
17.855 carries a fraction of .855, which is not below one-half, so the round-down instruction never reaches it. That gets you to 18 by the code being silent, not by the code granting a round-up. It is a reasonable reading and very likely how the Town applies it — but it is an inference, and the study presented it as a direct quotation that does not exist.
Why it matters: the difference between 18 and 17 is one unit, roughly $3M of sellout, resting entirely on how the Town reads a sentence about rounding down. Get it in writing from the Building Department before it is underwritten.
Sec. 23-11(c) is the B-1 Business district. RM-2 is Sec. 23-11(B2), and the density clause is subsection (11).
The number is right, and it is the real ceiling. It is not a by-right one.
Claimed rule: “Sec. 23-11(c) & Sec. 23-22.2 (60 DU/Acre ceiling).”
✓ 32 units is correct, and 60 DU/ac is genuinely RM-2’s overall ceiling.
The fraction .510 is not below one-half, so on the same reading as Claim 1 it goes to 32. This is the number the study reported without explanation as “31.51 raw rounds UP to 32” while simultaneously labelling the ceiling 80 DU/acre. The 31.51 was right; the label was wrong.
Every unit between 18 and 32 must be bought. The code is explicit that this is neither optional nor administrative:
“The TDR program is the required method for increasing density/intensity above the assured base density permitted by the property’s future land use map (FLUM) designation, the applicable comprehensive plan text provisions and land development regulations.” Town Code Sec. 23-22.2(a)
“No development permit shall be issued for any residential development that reflects a residential density higher than specified by the assured density unless the town council determines there are reserve units available or a transfer of development rights application is being simultaneously processed.” Town Code Sec. 23-22.1(c) — Density Monitoring System
Reaching 32 therefore requires all of the following: a donor parcel or available units in the Town’s TDR reserve bank; the Town Council electing how many units to assign (“The number of dwelling units or hotel/motel rooms being assigned to a receiving parcel shall be determined by the town council”); an executed contract and deed of transfer; and deed restrictions recorded in perpetuity against both the donor and the receiving parcel before any permit issues.
Calling 32 the “Town Council Max” is fair. Treating it as a number you can underwrite is not, until the reserve bank is confirmed to hold units and a price per unit is known.
One more cost: guest parking is waived for a single-lot site built without TDRs, but Sec. 23-24(c)(3)(8) provides that “if any TDR units are requested guest parking spaces shall be required.” Buying density also buys a parking obligation.
There is no per-lot allocation anywhere in Chapter 23. The code says the opposite.
Claimed rule: “County Plat Book PB 46-17 (Lots 15 & 16, Block 1). Lot 15 (17 units) + Lot 16 (17 units) = 34 Units.”
✗ Not in the code, and built on the wrong plat and the wrong lots.
“Computation of development rights. The number of allowable dwelling units or hotel/motel rooms in specified locations shall be determined by multiplying the net acreage of the lot by the applicable FLUM density, including portions of lots previously conveyed to the town, if any, for parking spaces.” Town Code Sec. 23-22.2(c)
Acreage × density. Not units-per-platted-lot. The phrase “17 units per lot” appears nowhere in Chapter 23; the only density figures in the chapter are the per-acre ones tabulated above.
Splitting a site on paper cannot create density. If it could, the 60 DU/acre ceiling would be meaningless, since any parcel could be subdivided until the arithmetic produced the desired answer.
The Miami-Dade Property Appraiser record for folio 13-2227-001-1610 gives the legal description as:
“BAY HARBOR ISLAND PB 46-5 | LOTS 19 & 20 BLK 7 | LOT SIZE 22876 SQ FT M/L | FAU 13 2227 043 0001 | FKA DRESDEN HOUSE CONDO” Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser, 2026 roll
The Town Code confirms the plat book independently, in its own definition of the island:
“East Island: The island shown on plat recorded in plat book 46, page 5, of the public records of Dade County, Florida, which is situate west of Indian Creek and east of Bay Harbor Waterway.” Town Code Sec. 23-1, Definitions
There is no PB 46-17. And Lots 15 & 16 in Block 1 are a different property in a different district — Sec. 23-2 places Lots 3 through 25 in Block 1 in RM-1.
Note also “FKA Dresden House Condo.” This was a condominium. Whether the declaration was properly terminated is a title question nobody has answered.
RM-2 has no hotel-room clause, and a hotel is not a permitted use in RM-2.
Claimed rule: “Sec. 23-11(b) (70 Keys/Acre transient allowance).”
✗ Not permitted. This fails twice, independently.
“In the RM-1 and RM-2 Multiple Family districts, no building or land shall be used and no building shall hereafter be erected… which is designed, arranged or intended to be used or occupied for any purpose, excepting for one or more of the following uses: (1) Two-family dwellings. (2) Multiple-family dwellings or apartments, including townhouses, and accessory buildings including duly licensed home occupation. (3) Accessory uses and site improvements… (4) Reserved. (5) Public schools, but only upon specific approval and permit of the town council. (6) Single-story drive-in bank tellers’ structures… (7) Temporary sales and business offices, construction trailers, and model dwelling units… (8) Parks, recreation and open space… (9) Public or private off-street parking facilities… (10) Vacation rentals subject to the provisions in Chapter 23, Article VI.” Town Code Sec. 23-4 — the complete list
“Excepting for one or more of the following” is a closed list. Hotel does not appear on it. The code separately defines one — “Hotel: A building or premises where lodging accommodations of more than five rooms are provided” (Sec. 23-1) — and permits the use in other districts, which is precisely why its absence here carries weight.
“Maximum number of hotel rooms. The maximum number of hotel rooms shall not exceed 70 rooms per acre.” Town Code Sec. 23-11(B1)(12) — RM-1 waterfront. The identical clause appears at 23-11(C)(11) for B-1.
Sec. 23-11(B2), the RM-2 subsection, runs from its Purpose statement through subsection (12) Building roof design. It contains front, rear and side setbacks, flex setbacks, maximum building length, breezeways, distance between buildings, corner lots, maximum height, landscaping, density and roof design. There is no hotel-rooms subsection. The study took a clause from RM-1 or B-1 and applied it to RM-2.
The arithmetic (0.525161 × 70 = 36.76 → 37) is correct arithmetic performed on a rule that does not govern this parcel.
Sec. 23-4(10) permits vacation rentals under Article VI. That is an owner-by-owner licensing programme, not a hotel: a separate licence and business tax receipt for each dwelling unit, renewed annually, non-transferable, subletting “strictly prohibited,” a 24/7 responsible party, and occupancy capped at two persons per sleeping room and three per available off-street parking space. It adds convenience for buyers. It adds zero density.
The code defines a dwelling unit by independence, not by front-door count. Forty independent doors are forty dwelling units.
Claimed rule: “Florida Building Code Multi-Key Split Foyer. 20 permitted condos × 2 private suites = 40 Doors.”
✗ Fails on the definition, and exceeds the ceiling even if it did not.
“Dwelling unit: A ‘dwelling unit’ is defined as any independent housekeeping unit in an apartment building, apartment hotel, bungalow court or duplex, or any single family residence.” Town Code Sec. 23-1, Definitions
The test is independence, not how the plan is labelled on a permit set. A lock-out suite marketed as separately rentable — its own entry, its own kitchen, its own bath, occupied by a separate household — is an independent housekeeping unit and therefore a dwelling unit, and every dwelling unit counts against density. If the suites are not independent, they cannot be rented separately and the entire economic premise of the option disappears. The claim needs them to be independent for revenue and non-independent for zoning at the same time.
There is no “Multi-Key Split Foyer” provision in the Florida Building Code that creates zoning density. The FBC governs life safety, egress, fire separation and accessibility; it does not override a municipal density cap, and the Town’s own definition controls what counts as a unit.
Each door would also have to satisfy Sec. 23-9(4) independently: no dwelling unit under 750 SF, one-bedroom minimum 900 SF, two-bedroom minimum 1,150 SF, plus 200 SF for each additional bedroom, plus 25 SF of storage located outside the unit.
And parking is assessed per dwelling unit: 40 doors would require 80 spaces under Sec. 23-24(c)(3), against 36 for an 18-unit building.
The arithmetic is right and 42 is genuinely reachable — but not for the reason given, and not at the price the study assumed.
Claimed rule: “Florida Statutes § 166.04151 / Comprehensive Plan (80 DU/Acre).”
✗ 80 DU/acre is not RM-2’s number, and the study cited Sec. 23-22, which does not exist.
As tabulated above, 80 DU/acre is the overall ceiling for RM-3 (Sec. 23-11(D)(12)) and B-1 (Sec. 23-11(C)(10)). RM-2’s is 60. The study also cites “Section 23-22” for this; Chapter 23 contains Sec. 23-21 (Gateway district), Sec. 23-22.1 (Density Monitoring System) and Sec. 23-22.2 (Transfer of Development Rights). There is no Sec. 23-22.
Under Fla. Stat. § 166.04151(7) as amended by SB 1730, effective 1 July 2025, a qualifying development is entitled to density up to the highest allowed anywhere in the jurisdiction and height up to the highest allowed within one mile, must be approved administratively without any elected or appointed board hearing, and cannot have a municipal charter used against its height or density. Because 80 DU/acre exists in Bay Harbor Islands in RM-3 and B-1, that is the figure the argument reaches for — which is how 42 becomes arguable. The price is that at least 40 percent of the residential units must be rental units affordable for at least 30 years.
The study’s Option 5 assumes a 100% ad valorem exemption on a 34-unit workforce scheme. The Multifamily Middle Market exemption at Fla. Stat. § 196.1978(3) requires a newly constructed development with more than 70 units — 71 or more — set aside for qualifying households. At 71+ units the exemption is 100% of assessed value for units at or below 80% AMI and 75% for units between 81% and 120% AMI.
This site cannot reach 71 units under any reading. The exemption is therefore unavailable, and Option 5’s net operating income is overstated by the entire property tax line.
Net: 42 units is arguable, at the cost of 40% of the building let at affordable rents for 30 years, with no offsetting tax relief.
“A minimum of two parking spaces shall be required on the building plot for each dwelling unit within a multiple-family development. In addition, guest parking spaces shall be provided… At least one guest parking space shall be required for each whole platted lot.” Town Code Sec. 23-24(c)(3)
Working from the actual RM-2 setbacks in Sec. 23-11(B2)(1)–(3) — 30 ft front for a building under 65 ft, 10 ft rear and side plus one additional foot for every three feet of height above 30 ft, and for a development on more than one lot a side setback of 10% of street frontage with a 22.5 ft maximum — on a 150 ft × 152.5 ft site:
| Scheme | Units | Spaces required | Parking levels | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| By-right | 18 | 36 | 1 | Fits one podium level of ~13,500 SF |
| Maximum with TDRs | 32 | 64 + guest | 2 | Second level costs a residential floor |
| Live Local | 42 | 84 | 2–3 | Does not fit the envelope |
| Dual-key doors | 40 | 80 | 2–3 | Over the density ceiling regardless |
Sec. 23-11(B2)(10) additionally requires “a minimum of 20 percent landscaped ‘green’ open space at ground level” — 4,575 SF of this site that cannot be building or pavement, which the higher-density schemes need for their ramps and drives. Sec. 23-30(f) and 23-30.1 do permit tandem and mechanically stacked parking, but only with Town Council approval, which forfeits the by-right posture.
The six claims above were the study’s. This section asks the different question: is there any lawful way to put more units on this land? Seven routes exist in the code. Six are closed. One is wide open, and it is the one nobody looked at.
Height does not create units. RM-2 density is fixed at 34 dwelling units per acre, not per floor. Winning the Charter’s 75 ft instead of 65 ft, or stacking a sixth storey, produces bigger units or better views — not more of them. Every route below is therefore about acreage, about the multiplier, or about the use.
| Route | Authority | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Buy adjacent land | Sec. 23-10, 23-22.2(c) | ✓ Open, and scales linearly |
| PUD overlay | Sec. 23-18 | ✗ Expressly barred from raising density |
| Convert units to hotel keys at 0.486 | Sec. 23-22.2(c) | ✗ Use not permitted in RM-2 |
| Rezone to RM-3 or B-1 (80 DU/ac) | Sec. 23-16 | ✗ 5/7 council supermajority, twice |
| Gateway district | Sec. 23-21(b) | ✗ Applies to five named lots. Not ours. |
| Vested rights claim | Ch. 23 Art. V | ✗ A takings procedure, not a density tool |
| Live Local | § 166.04151(7) | ✓ Open, at 40% affordable for 30 years |
Because Sec. 23-22.2(c) computes units by multiplying the net acreage of the lot by the applicable FLUM density, every additional square foot of contiguous RM-2 land buys density at a fixed, predictable rate. Sec. 23-10 permits it explicitly:
“…provided, however, that any such construction in such districts may consist of more than one lot if the property in addition to the basic or fundamental lot for the construction is contiguous to the basic lot. If the building site shall be formed of property consisting of more than one lot as so subdivided, then it shall be of such combination of contiguous lots or contiguous portions of lots as will form an integral unit of land suitable for use as a site for a building of the type permitted in such district…” Town Code Sec. 23-10 — Minimum size of building site
Block 7 runs, west to east, as follows. All four parcels are RM-2. The last three are contiguous to one another and to the subject.
| Folio | Lots, Block 7 | Lot SF | Units | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13-2227-001-1580 | Lots 13 thru 15 | 33,750 | VACANT | CHBH 100th Street LLC — bought 3/2022 for $2,733,400; 2026 land value $6,750,000 |
| 13-2227-001-1590 | Lot 16 & W½ Lot 17 | 14,143 | 16 | T D Systems Inc — building dates to 1983 |
| 13-2227-001-1601 | E½ Lot 17 & Lot 18 | 14,143 | 6 | Manuel De La Cruz — directly abuts the subject |
| 13-2227-001-1610 | Lots 19 & 20 (subject) | 22,876 | 18 | R M C A Development LLC — bought 2/2026 for $6,400,000 |
What each step buys, using the same 34 DU/acre by right and 60 DU/acre with TDRs applied above:
| Assemblage | Site SF | Acres | By right | Max with TDRs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject alone | 22,876 | 0.5252 | 18 | 32 |
| + 1601 (the abutting 6-unit) | 37,019 | 0.8498 | 29 | 51 |
| + 1590 (the 1983 16-unit) | 51,162 | 1.1745 | 40 | 70 |
| + 1580 (the vacant 33,750 SF) | 84,912 | 1.9493 | 66 | 117 |
Two things follow that change the shape of the deal.
One additional purchase does more than every clever reading combined. Buying the abutting 6-unit building at folio 1601 takes the by-right count from 18 to 29. That is more units than the study’s fabricated 34-unit double-lot theory would have delivered, without a variance, a hearing, a TDR purchase or an affordability covenant. The 40 lock-out doors and the 37 hotel keys both fail on the code; 29 units simply does not.
Assemblage is also the only way to reach the Live Local tax exemption. Fla. Stat. § 196.1978(3) requires more than 70 units. On the subject parcel alone that threshold is unreachable, which is why the study’s Option 5 was struck. Across the full block run it is comfortably cleared — 117 units with TDRs, or 70 at by-right density on three parcels. At that scale the 100% ad valorem exemption on qualifying units becomes real, and the Live Local density and administrative-approval provisions apply on top.
PUD. The overlay permits hotel, restaurant, retail and office uses alongside residential, which makes it look like the answer. It is not, on two counts. The Council is barred from using it to add density:
“…except that the town council shall be prohibited from approving a PUD application which would increase the intensity, density or height of development above that which is allowed by the comprehensive plan or underlying zoning district.” Town Code Sec. 23-18(f)
And the eligibility gate almost certainly excludes this site anyway: Sec. 23-18(c)(1) requires that the property “shall be contiguous to or adjacent to real property zoned B-1-Business district and shall not be contiguous or adjacent to existing residential development on more than one property line.” B-1 is Blocks 11, 12, 20 and 21, around Kane Concourse. Block 7 sits several blocks north and is surrounded by RM-2 residential. Confirm on the zoning map, but expect a no.
The 0.486 hotel conversion. This is the most interesting dead end in the code, and worth understanding because it explains a number in the study:
“Additional hotel/motel rooms shall be computed using a conversion factor of 0.486 dwelling unit.” Town Code Sec. 23-22.2(c), repeated under Maximum density
A hotel key consumes less than half a dwelling unit of density. The same budget therefore buys roughly twice as many keys as units.
Note that 18 ÷ 0.486 lands on 37 — the study’s key count, reached by a completely different and incorrect route. That is coincidence, not corroboration.
It does not help us, because the conversion governs how development rights are computed, not what may be built. Hotel use is not on the Sec. 23-4 permitted-use list for RM-2, and the only route to hotel use — PUD — is blocked above. Worth one question to the land use attorney, and no more.
Rezoning. Sec. 23-16 permits amendment of “the regulations and boundaries herein established,” which would include moving this parcel to RM-3 or B-1 and their 80 DU/acre ceilings. The bar is deliberately high:
“…provided however, that no amendment shall become effective except by the favorable vote of five-sevenths of all members of the town council, had on two successive meetings of the town council.” Town Code Sec. 23-16
Five of seven, twice, in a town whose Charter already forces a public referendum for any building over 75 feet. It is a route, not a plan.
Gateway, and vested rights. The Gateway district applies only to “Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1; Lot 1 of Block 2; Lot 32 of Block 3; and Lot 37 of Block 4” (Sec. 23-21(b)). Chapter 23 Article V is a procedure for asserting a taking or vested rights, expressly “limited solely to extreme circumstances,” and confers no additional density. Both are dead ends here.
Sec. 23-22.2(c) computes allowable units from the FLUM density, not from the zoning district. That made the Future Land Use Map the one document that could still move the answer, and it is not published in the online code. It is published as a separate map by the Town. Here is what it says.
The East Island — our island — is designated Medium-High Density. The legend gives that category a range of 6 to 34 dwelling units per acre. Directly beneath the legend, the map carries this note:
“THE TOWN MAY AUTHORIZE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT DENSITIES IN THE MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY AT HIGHER DENSITIES THROUGH THE TDR PROCESS.” Town of Bay Harbor Islands Future Land Use Map, Figure L-10, legend note
That settles it from the other direction. The comprehensive plan and the zoning code agree: 34 dwelling units per acre is the ceiling without TDRs, and TDR is the only named mechanism for exceeding it. There is no higher FLUM designation hiding behind the zoning, and no third route the code forgot to mention.
The right way to test a density answer is not to read the code again. It is to find buildings that exist, measure their sites, and see what the Town actually granted. Two recent projects on this island make the pattern obvious.
| Project | Site | Lot SF | Acres | Units built | Achieved DU/ac | By right at 34 | Units from TDR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sereno Residences 10201 E Bay Harbor Dr, 2016 | Lots 6–8, Block 4 — 3 lots — RM-1 waterfront | 33,750 | 0.7748 | 38 | 49.0 | 26 | 12 |
| La Baia South 9201 E Bay Harbor Dr, Continuum Company | Lots 19–22, Block 1 — 4 lots, unity of title OR 33191-4560 — RM-1 waterfront | 45,006 | 1.0332 | 68 | 65.8 | 35 | 33 |
| Subject 10000 E Bay Harbor Dr | Lots 19–20, Block 7 — 2 lots — RM-2 interior | 22,876 | 0.5252 | — | — | 18 | up to 14 |
Unit counts from the Miami-Dade condominium roll (Sereno: 38 unit folios plus one reference folio). Lot sizes and legal descriptions from the Property Appraiser.
1. Nobody in Bay Harbor builds at base density. Sereno took 26 by-right units and delivered 38. La Baia took 35 and delivered 68 — it very nearly doubled its entitlement. Neither project treated 34 DU/acre as the answer. Both treated it as the starting position. If the plan here is 18 units, that is not a conservative plan; it is the only plan that involves no transferred density at all, and it is well below what the market around it is doing.
2. The TDR bank is not theoretical. Twelve units moved for Sereno and thirty-three for La Baia. Those are real, completed transactions in this town, which means there are donor parcels and a functioning process. The right question is not how to avoid TDRs. It is what the Town’s reserve bank currently holds and what a unit costs — because that is the transaction every comparable developer here has already made.
3. Both precedents had advantages this site does not, and they are structural. Sereno assembled three lots; La Baia assembled four. This site has two. And both are on RM-1 waterfront parcels, where Sec. 23-11(B1)(11) sets the overall ceiling at 70 dwelling units per acre. This site is RM-2 interior, where Sec. 23-11(B2)(11) sets it at 60. La Baia’s achieved 65.8 DU/acre would be illegal here regardless of how many TDRs were bought.
So the honest comparison is this. On the code, 32 units is the maximum this parcel can ever hold, TDRs included. Sereno got 38 and La Baia got 68 not because they read the code more cleverly, but because they were standing on more land, in a more permissive district, and they bought density. Two of those three are still available here: buy the neighbour, and buy the TDRs.
Sec. 23-22.2(c) computes allowable units from the FLUM density. The Future Land Use Map lives in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, which Sec. 23-56 adopts by reference and which is not published in the online code. If the FLUM designation for this parcel carries a density other than 34 DU/acre, every figure above moves. The Town’s planning department has to provide it before anything here is underwritten. Also outstanding: whether the TDR reserve bank currently holds available units, the Florida Building Code freeboard above base flood elevation that sets the height datum, and whether any Dresden House condominium instrument still encumbers title.
Prepared by Neuman Group Development Advisory, 29 August 2026. This document checks a prior feasibility study against primary sources. It is not a legal opinion and does not substitute for a zoning verification letter from the Town of Bay Harbor Islands.