Suit Looks To Overturn Fla. City’s Affordable Housing Denial
A New York developer has hit Hollywood, Florida, with a state court suit accusing the city of improperly interpreting the state’s Live Local Act to block the developer’s proposed 17-story beachfront project after falling short in efforts to get the affordable housing law changed.
The 2023 law, which offers developers entitlements to build bigger and with limited local control in exchange for including a percentage of affordable housing units in projects, hasgenerated considerable buzz, but also a number of disputes over local governments’ implementation. The current controversy landed on Friday in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, brought by developer Condra Property Group, which sued Hollywood over the denial of its site plan approval for a mixed-use project on Hollywood Beach over height concerns.
The case may be closely watched by developers and local governments as the court weighs how to factor in existing developments within special zoning districts for comparative purposes when interpreting height and density entitlements provided under the Live Local Act.
Condra, which filed the suit through several development entities, says its project, which is located in the city’s Beach Resort Commercial District zoning area, consists of three buildings: a 17-story, 183-foot tall tower housing 282 residential units — 114 of which will be maintained for 30 years with qualifying affordable rents — and 35,100 square feet of commercial space; a parking garage with ground-level retail space; and a third building with space for two small restaurants or bars and a rooftop pool.
The company says the project is expected to have a value of $80 million when completed and that it spent about $1 million on architects, engineers and other professionals to develop the design for the development in “strict accordance with the Live Local Act.”
In its administrative denial of Condra’s plans, the city rejected the developer’s use of the nearby 183-foot, 8-inch-tall Margaritaville Hollywood Beach Resort as a benchmark to apply a provision in the Live Local Act that says a municipality may not restrict the height of a proposed development that is below the height of the highest currently allowed building within 1 mile of the subject property.
The city asserted that the Margaritaville Resort is not an allowable height benchmark because it is located within the city’s Government Use Zoning District and approval of its design came through a specialized process that triggers an exception in the Live Local Act for buildings that received a “bonus, variance or other special exception for height.”
Condra disputes that interpretation, but also alleges that the city reached that conclusion after stalling the review process for a year while it was unsuccessfully “working behind the scenes” to obtain several amendments to the law to thwart the project.
“The Margaritaville Resort is unquestionably a commercial development, which was developed as of right within the Government Use District, without receiving any bonus, variance or special exception from the city,” Condra contends in the complaint. “Despite plaintiffs raising these objections, the city disingenuously maintains its position that the Margaritaville Resort is not an appropriate height benchmark for the project … and that, therefore, the project as proposed is not in compliance with the Live Local Act.”
According to the complaint, the city’s development services director confirmed that the Margaritaville Resort, which wasn’t developed under the Live Local Act, didn’t collect any bonuses, variances or special exceptions, as defined in the city’s zoning and land development regulations.
Condra lays out in the complaint — through email communications it obtained via a public records request — the city’s efforts to change the state law. The messages show that Hollywood sought to have barrier islands, such as Hollywood Beach, exempted from the scope of the Live Local Act, and when that failed, it then pushed for the 1-mile radius for height provision to be reworded to limit the allowed height of Live Local Act projects to their properties’ same-zoning designation — in this case 65 feet.
After state lawmakers rejected that change, as well, the city issued its formal denial notice to Condra on Aug. 29, according to the complaint.
“Accordingly, the city crafted a new position, nearly one year later, that a commercial development within the city’s Government Use Zoning District somehow equates to it having received a bonus, variance or other special exception for height provided in the [zoning and land development regulations], and that, therefore, applying the privileges of height, density and land use for developments within the Government Use District to a development such as the [Condra] project does not meet the intent of the [zoning and land development regulations] or the Live Local Act,” the complaint said.
“Ironically, and contrary to the city’s administrative denial, the Government Use zoning category actually contains specific procedures to receive a special exception, which was not required for the development of the Margaritaville Resort,” it added.
Condra is asking the court to make several findings overturning the city’s interpretations and that its project should be granted administrative site plan approval to move forward under the Live Local Act’s provisions.
Condra’s counsel didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit Wednesday.
Joann Hussey, a spokeswoman for Hollywood, said that, since the litigation is pending, she could only confirm that the city had been served with the complaint Wednesday and “will be reviewing it accordingly.”
Condra is represented by Keith Poliakoff, Alan G. Kipnis and Andrew Ingber of Government Law Group.
The case is Astrid 2 LLC et al. v City of Hollywood, Florida, case number CACE25000426, in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
–Editing by Melissa Treolo.
Article Link: Suit Looks To Overturn Fla. City’s Affordable Housing Denial
Author: Nathan Hale