A luxury condo tower slated to rise on public land at the beach is the target of a lawsuit that accuses Hollywood of breaking its own rules and laws to make way for the project and its controversial 99-year ground lease.

The lawsuit, filed last week in Broward Circuit Court, lists the city of Hollywood and Miami-based Related Group as defendants in a case that could dictate what happens to the land at 1301 S. Ocean Drive.

The parcel, deeded to Hollywood more than 50 years ago, is now home to a park and community center.

If the project breaks ground, Related Group plans to build a 30-story tower that will stand 365 high. The project calls for 210 residences: 126 luxury condos and 84 workforce apartments.

Kathleen DiBona, named as a plaintiff along with the newly formed nonprofit Keep Public Lands Public Inc., can see the land in question from her balcony on the 14th floor of the nearby Oxford Towers condo.

By filing the lawsuit, she hopes to bring the project to a permanent end.

“I feel strongly it is the right thing to do regarding protecting our public lands,” DiBona told the South Florida Sun Sentinel this week. “The lawsuit truly speaks for itself.”

The multi-count complaint argues that a 99-year lease of public land requires voter approval by referendum.

The lawsuit also claims the property is subject to a recorded deed restriction limiting its use to open space, park, recreational and other public and municipal purposes.

The complaint accuses the city of approving the deal without putting the question on the ballot to get voter input as required by the city charter and a city ordinance that mandates a voter referendum before park or beachfront property east of the Intracoastal Waterway can be sold, leased or encumbered for 50 years or more.

Hollywood commissioners signed off on the comprehensive agreement and ground lease four years ago in May 2022.

A Hollywood spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the city had not yet been served.

Keith Poliakoff, attorney for Related Group, said he and his client were confident the lawsuit would be dismissed.

“They have absolutely zero standing and missed the boat to sue by four years,” Poliakoff said. “It’s going to be interesting to see who is getting stuck holding the bag for the attorneys’ fees. This case will be dismissed faster than the ink dried on the filing, and we are not going to hesitate to collect the fee judgement that we are about to obtain.”

Ryan Abrams, attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Sun Sentinel his clients had until May 2027 to file the lawsuit.

“There’s a five-year statute of limitations,” he said. “I don’t know what he means by that. That’s what courts are for. This is a sincere desire of the group that’s behind this lawsuit to keep public lands in public hands. That’s what this is about. This is about keeping public lands in public hands, where it belongs.”

The lawsuit claims the project by its very nature violates the deed restrictions on the property.

Poliakoff argued that’s not the case at all.

“Contrary to their statements, there are no deed restrictions on this site,” he said. “The Florida Supreme Court has firmly established that restrictive covenants affecting the usage of land do not apply to a public body which acquires the land. Even if they did apply, the Florida statutes fully support that workforce housing is a public purpose.”

An amendment to the state’s Live Local Act, expected to take effect Wednesday, will allow developers to build workforce housing on government land in a bid to address the state’s affordable housing crisis.

In May, Related Group revised the project to add workforce apartments under Florida’s Live Local Act. The move allows the developer to bypass local density and height restrictions. It also transfers full control to the city, forcing the county into an observer role with no say in the project.

The lawsuit lists several reasons why DiBono, the lone named plaintiff, will be personally impacted if the condo gets built.

DiBona purchased her home in reliance on the open, low-intensity character of the property, which has been owned by the city and used solely as a public park and community facility for more than four decades, the lawsuit says.

If built, the new condo tower will stand up to 365 feet in height, nearly double the height of DiBona’s building.

“Because the tower will rise above her building at close range, the occupants of its upper floors will have direct sightlines into the interior living spaces of her unit, depriving DiBona of the privacy she presently enjoys in her home,” the suit states.

“The tower will obstruct and ultimately eliminate DiBona’s direct view of the park, limit her view of the ocean, and will interfere with the light and air enjoyed by her unit in a manner not shared by the public at large,” the suit adds. “The project includes an elevated rooftop pool and cabana deck that will generate noise impacts, harming DiBona’s quiet use and enjoyment of her balcony and unit.”

Poliakoff argues DiBono has no standing in the case.

“Florida law is abundantly clear that to challenge a local zoning ordinance or development, a plaintiff must prove a ‘special injury’ that is different in kind, not just in degree, from what the general public experiences,” he said. “Living two blocks away from the development does not constitute a special injury.”

Article Link: Lawsuit aims to stop private condo from being built on public beachfront in Hollywood
Author: Susannah Bryan