Long-delayed plans for the $1 billion Transit Village project in downtown West Palm Beach may move forward as settlement talks progress between developers and Palm Beach County. According to the Palm Beach Post, attorneys representing the development team are negotiating to resolve a lawsuit regarding the sale price of a 6.6-acre county-owned parcel near a major transit hub, potentially avoiding a trial scheduled for February.
Court documents indicate that Joseph Abruzzo, who was appointed Palm Beach County Administrator last year, played a role in helping both parties work towards an agreement. “The opposing sides began working together in good faith to try to amicably resolve this matter,” stated attorneys for the developers in court filings.
The Transit Village project is being developed by Aventura-based BH Group led by the Toledano family, Coconut Grove-based Related Group headed by the Pérez family, and Michael Masanoff. The proposed mixed-use development at 150 Clearwater Drive would be located atop a city bus station and adjacent to Tri-Rail, Amtrak, and Greyhound facilities.
Transit Village has been planned for about 15 years. After Michael Masanoff secured city approval to redevelop the site, activity stalled until 2021 when Related Group, BH Group, and investor Sagi joined the effort. In 2022, West Palm Beach approved plans for three 25-story towers with nearly 1,000 residential units; a fourth tower with hotel rooms; office space; micro-units; workforce housing; retail; and an elevated podium.
The dispute arose in 2024 after developers sued Palm Beach County over increasing the land price from $3.6 million—agreed upon in 2012—to $35.5 million. The county argued that repayment of almost $3 million in Federal Transit Administration grants was necessary because current property values put what was owed at $35.5 million. Developers countered that there was no such repayment requirement from either their contract or from federal authorities.
Previous delays before new investment from BH Group, Related Group, and Sagi were reportedly due to repeated amendments required by changing plans with government agencies.
Both developer attorneys and county representatives declined comment on ongoing negotiations.
If reached, any settlement must be approved at a public meeting of the county commission.
