Can you sue the view?
Alhambra Place, a Fort Lauderdale condo tower with beach views, claims exactly the breach of contract and seeks more than $10 million in damages.
For 24 years, residents of the 16-storey condo tower at 209 N. Birch Road have enjoyed free views of the ocean.
Then came Selenium, a twin 26-storey condo tower, heading east of Alhambra Place.
The project’s design has undergone a major change in the design, despite the development agreement the builder had with the Condominium Association of Alhambra in July 2020, according to a recent lawsuit filed at Broward Circuit Court.
The lawsuit lists Colter Group and KT Sea Breeze Atlantic as defendants, claiming that they submitted numerous plan revisions “to reduce costs and increase profits” without the knowledge or consent of the Alhambra Condominium Association. The revision was made solely to dramatically change the external design of the project and “strengthen the developers,” the lawsuit states.
“It’s a completely different project,” said Keith Poliakov, one of the lawyers representing Alhambra Place. “The Alhambra didn’t know. Some of these changes affect the Alhambra’s view corridor.”
Kolter Group has not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit. KT Seabreeze Atlantic is no longer in business, according to lawsuits and state records.
Kolter’s senior official, Bob Vail, introduced the question to developer’s lawyer Stephanie Toothaker.
Toothaker told Sun Sentinel in South Florida: “Since its founding, Kolter has enjoyed a very positive and supportive relationship with his neighbors through the development of the iconic Selene project.
“Things didn’t seem right.”
Jim Novik lives on the 11th floor of Alhambra Place and serves as president of the Condominium Association.
In March, Novik said he noticed that the tower rising across the street didn’t look like the rendering he and his neighbors were shown before construction began almost four years ago.
“It was pretty lined up that we realised things didn’t seem right,” Novik said. “I had equipment to get in the way. When the crane came down, I was like, ‘Oh, my god, that wasn’t supposed to be there.’ They added more stucco to save one balcony on the sixth floor. ”
Novick says he contacted the developer because of his concerns.
“I was telling them to drop off the balcony,” he said. “I told them my board wasn’t happy with this. Look at what you can do to fix these things. They told me they’d be back to me for all these changes and they didn’t come back to me.”
Spend your days with Hayes
Subscribe to our free Stephenly newsletter
Columnist Stephanie Hayes shares thoughts, feelings and interesting business with you every Monday.
You’re all signed up!
Want more free weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.
Check out all options
That was when the condo committee decided to sue. Novik said.
“The End of Our Universe”
Selene’s Twin Towers are the tallest on the beach, rising 300 feet above sea level at 3000 Alhambra St.
The residential project built on that part of the beach is 200 feet tall.
However, in late 2020, Fort Lauderdale commissioners signed a special zoning that would allow builders to get higher.
Previous designs required a set of shorter, blocky towers, 200 feet tall, almost 100 condominiums and three times more space than restaurant and shops.
However, residents of Alhambra Place preferred to build taller, thinner towers that would help developers maintain their views.
“If they construct a huge, huge box in front of us, that’s the end of our universe,” Novik told the committee member at the time. “We asked one unit owner to say, ‘If they build this, they’ll never see the sun.’ ”
The project was approved by the committee in October 2020.
Less than two years later, the developer returned to the committee and requested approval, called an administrative amendment to the approved site plan.
Warning for the proposed changes, Novik spoke at a July 2022 meeting and said he flew from his second home in Boston to challenge him.
During the meeting, Toothaker told the committee that her clients were requesting changes to the project’s dimensional standards and architecture.
“Acknowledged in a closed room”
That night, the developer retracted requests for changes related to dimension standards and architecture, the lawsuit says. The only changes requested – and approved changes include a reduction in the number of condominium units from 215 to 196. An increase of 500 square feet of restaurant and retail space. Corresponding reductions of private parking spaces from 497 to 480.
“I returned from Boston on July 4th, left my family and got on a plane to city hall and testified,” Novik said. “And they retracted the proposal, and I thanked them.”
However, the lawsuit alleges that the developers will return later and ask city staff to sign off on several amendments identical to those withdrawn at the committee meeting.
“They submitted changes and were administratively approved by city staff, no one knew,” Poliakov said. “City staff said they were minor modifications. These were not minor modifications.”
On April 23, 2025, the Alhambra’s Condo Association sent a notice to the developer accusing them of breach of contract.
The notice alleges that several design changes have been made in violation of the development agreement the developer made at Alhambra Place. among them:
East Tower Departure
1. The elegant round row floating outside the corner facade of the L-shaped indented building was eliminated and replaced by 90-degree building corners and integral corner edge columns. The elimination of this feature undermines its appearance and makes the building look even wider.
2. The north facade of East Tower, Level 5, was built with a balcony that stretches farther out the tower’s balcony line to the edge of the amenity deck.
3. The west facing level 4 of the East Tower is constructed with a vast expanse of large concrete, contradicting the rendering depicting all the glass and unobstructed balconies.
Amenity deck deviation
1. The one-storey spa, which extends from West Tower, was reduced in the second management revision, adding about 30 feet more north-south open areas.
2. Part of the dog park to the west of the stair tower was removed from the reconstructed dog park and surrounded by walls. This is inconsistent with unit view rendering.
3. The fourth level of the East Tower is partially glass only, contradicting the unit view rendering showing the full glass façade.
Facade departing from the western podium
1. In unit view rendering, glass accounts for 65% to 70% of the vertical sections of the west facing podium facade, level 1.5, 2 and 3, but only about 47% built.
2. Unit View Rendering does not display exposed columns other than corners, but exposed center columns have been added to the built product.
3. The contract requires frosted glass on the west side of the parking lot. The actual structure appears to show tinted glass.
The tower is scheduled to open later this year.
“The plaintiff believes that there are additional violations and defaults in the terms of the contract and is seeking a full inspection of the property below,” the lawsuit states.
