Long-delayed plans for the $1 billion Transit Village development in downtown West Palm Beach may soon move forward as attorneys for the project’s developers and Palm Beach County are negotiating a settlement, according to a report from the Palm Beach Post. The legal dispute centered on the sale price of a 6.6-acre county-owned site intended for the project.
Court documents indicate that Joseph Abruzzo, who became Palm Beach County Administrator last year, played a role in restarting talks between the parties. The developers’ attorneys wrote in filings that both sides “began working together in good faith to try to amicably resolve this matter.”
The Transit Village project is planned by BH Group, led by the Toledano family from Aventura; Related Group, led by the Pérez family from Coconut Grove; and Michael Masanoff. Their proposal calls for a 1.3 million-square-foot mixed-use complex at 150 Clearwater Drive. The site is above a major city bus station and adjacent to transportation options including Tri-Rail, Amtrak, and Greyhound.
Originally conceived over 15 years ago when Masanoff won rights to redevelop the property, Transit Village stalled until new investment came from Related Group, BH Group, and Sagi in 2021. In 2022, city officials approved plans for three residential towers with nearly 1,000 units and a fourth tower containing hotel rooms as well as office space totaling 180,000 square feet. Plans also include micro-units, workforce housing options, retail space and an elevated podium.
However, progress halted again when developers filed suit against Palm Beach County in 2024 after officials raised the sale price of the land to $35.5 million—almost ten times higher than an earlier agreement made in 2012. According to court filings cited by local media outlets, county officials said they sought repayment of about $3 million in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants because federal authorities required reimbursement based on current market values—leading to an amount owed of $35.5 million. Developers have argued that there was no such requirement from FTA or mention of repayment obligations in their contract with the county.
Prior delays before new investors joined remain unclear but were reportedly linked to repeated changes in agreements with government agencies due to evolving project plans.
Representatives for both sides declined comment on ongoing negotiations when contacted by reporters.
Any proposed settlement would need approval at a public meeting of county officials.
