Planning board denies Bet Midrash’s Home Tower school citing incomplete traffic and safety evidence

The Hollywood Planning & Development Board voted to deny a special‑exception request from Bet Midrash Inc. to operate a K–8 religious school in the base of the Home Tower, 720 Harrison Street. The vote followed an extended quasi‑judicial hearing in which staff found traffic and parking criteria inconsistent but still recommended approval under federal religious‑land protections with multiple conditions.

Staff’s presentation, led by Andrea Winget, the city’s interim director of development services, identified three special‑exception review criteria that were inconsistent with the application — primarily queuing, traffic volume and parking impacts — and recommended conditional approval if the board imposed specific measures, including an updated traffic study, a site operations and pickup/drop‑off plan, a cap on enrollment matching the applicant’s ramp‑up, FDOT coordination for driveway access, and potential police details during arrival/dismissal.

City and staff counsel explained the legal context: under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), courts apply a high bar when a land‑use denial would substantially burden religious exercise. Staff attorney Richard Doody and city counsel advised the board on that standard, saying traffic and parking ordinarily are not treated as a compelling interest under the case law and that denial risks legal challenge unless the government shows a compelling interest and the least‑restrictive means.

Opposing the request, party interveners representing nearby developers and property owners argued the application lacked essential technical evidence and practical access rights. Attorney Keith Polikoff (representing BTI and others) told the board the applicant’s traffic analysis was incomplete, that proposed bus operations could not be implemented because a canopy/awning obstructs bus clearance and that BTI would not grant access to its property for stacking or circulation. Polikoff also raised concerns about a proposed Walgreens location and how school operations would block or interfere with nearby private parking and circulation.

Applicant counsel Bobby Behar said the school would be K–8 (not K–12), would phase to a maximum of 700 students over three years, and would operate on a 100%‑busing model with staff parking off‑site and shuttles for staff. He said the applicant planned to remove the canopy to allow bus access and would work with FDOT and the city on any required permits and access agreements.

The city’s traffic consultant, Lisa Bernstein, testified the traffic study lacked a required queuing analysis, did not model buses as proposed mitigation, and had not completed required coordination with FDOT for driveway geometry. Fire prevention staff said a building permit remained under review, and police confirmed there is already a dedicated traffic detail at nearby schools.

During deliberations board members said they were persuaded that key technical elements — an FDOT pre‑application, a fully consistent traffic study that includes bus operations and queuing, and enforceable access agreements — were missing and that conditions proposed by staff could not be reliably enforced or shown in the record to eliminate the cited risks. Several members also raised life‑safety concerns tied to the potential for queuing to back into the state road and to emergency access. After debate and legal guidance, a majority voted to deny the special exception, citing the incomplete traffic and parking evidence and life‑safety uncertainties.

What’s next: The denial is a final action of the board for the special‑exception request; the applicant may challenge the denial administratively or in court, and counsel in the hearing noted the case law and RLUIPA implications would shape any subsequent appeal.