Year: 2025

BRADENTON BEACH – Pines Trailer Park residents came to an April 17 city commission meeting well-prepared and represented to discuss their lack of parking at the park.

At issue was the parking lot at 201 First Street, which had historically been used for free by Pines residents and was converted to paid parking in January by park ownership Pines Park Investors LLC. Nearly half of the 86 Pines residents who do not have parking at their units relied on the parking lot.

The lot was free to residents until Jan. 1, 2024 but Pines owners shut it down on Dec. 31, 2024, giving Pines residents the option to pay $750 a year for a single space.

Park owners’ attorney Stephen Thompson requested more time to make a presentation to the com­mission. Commissioners granted that request but also heard public comment from Pines residents, then decided to have the city planner and building official review the parking lot.

“At a minimum we would like to have a more comprehensive meeting where we get some time to make a full presentation about this parking, the history and why we feel we’re entitled to it,” Thompson said.

That request drew protests from Pines residents, and Mayor John Chappie asked for quiet in the cham­bers.

“If we’re going to do that, it needs to be by May 1. Otherwise, we’re waiting a whole month and that’s not fair to the Pines,” Commissioner Scott Bear said.

“I just think like Scott said we can’t wait too long,” Commissioner Debbie Scaccianoce said. “They’ve been waiting long enough. It’s a constant battle for these people and they’ve gone through a lot already and I would like to get this resolved.”

“You give us a date and we’ll be here,” Thompson said.

“Today was the day,” people called out.

Chappie read six emails into the record from Pines residents before opening the meeting to public com­ment. Residents asked commissioners to look at the city codes including for M-1 zoning, which requires a parking space for each mobile homeowner.

“I purchased in April 2024 with the understanding from both the seller and the park manager that I was guaranteed a parking spot. I wouldn’t have purchased my unit if I’d been informed the parking situation would be questionable. The uncertainty around the park’s timeline and this disastrous parking situation left me with no choice but to walk away from the investment of $200,000 I poured my heart into,” one resident wrote.

Prior to public comment, City At­torney Ricinda Perry left the meeting for an appointment but said she would listen to the recording.

Mary Mox said, “My husband and I bought our place in the park and were assigned a parking space. When we purchased our mobile home and were told to park in the lot.”

Mox showed commissioners her prior years’ parking passes.

“These say Pines Parking lot,” Mox said. “We would receive memorandums saying, when you arrive this fall make sure you see the manager and obtain a parking permit and any people without a parking permit will be subject to being towed away. We were allowed one vehicle per mobile home.”

“I’ve been prepared for two weeks because that’s what you told me to do,” Pines homeowner Elayne Armaniaco said. “That’s what you told all of us to do. They didn’t prepare and yet somehow or another they’re being time allowed for extra preparation.”

She said that it’s commonly known that the parking lot was assigned for Pines Trailer Park resident use.

“Everyone in this room knows that this parking lot for five decades was assigned for Pines Trailer Park for owners who don’t have parking in their units,” Armaniaco said. “Even Mr. Kaleta and all associated with the Pines Park Investors know this.”

She produced a real estate listing prior to the Pines Park Investors’ 2023 purchase that described the parking lot as part of the sale.

“That parking lot is necessary for the park owners to comply with your code, and yet there has been no code enforcement,” she said. “City Attorney Perry would have you think because this lot has historically been used for parking, that it’s OK to just disregard the tenants who were using it.

“If that’s not enough for you to recognize that a paid lot at this location is improper, then let’s ask other questions like, does it comply with code? Is it a parking facility? Does it change from ownership as­signing parking to its residents to ownership making a profit as a public lot increase the intensity of its use? Of course it does,” Armaniaco said. “You don’t need two weeks to make a presentation to make that point. This is literally forcing Pines Trailer Park residents out of their homes. If the terms of the agreement between the (former owners) Jacksons and the LLC had been honored, this park would be thriving by now.

“Taking away parking is not just unjust, it’s against your own city code,” she said. “Will this governing body really vote to push out the ten­ants and homeowners of Pines Trailer Park? You have the opportunity and the authority to right a wrong.”

Sarasota-based attorney Nathan Reneau, who is representing the Pines Park Homeowners Association, read a letter from the HOA president.

“Many residents have transferred their deeds to the Urban Group that Pines Trailer Park investors have retained to manage eviction processes. Why have they done this? Because they have nowhere to park their vehicles. And they have stated to us, their HOA, they have no choice but to surrender their deeds,” Reneau read.

“Historically and traditionally the parking lot at Pines Trailer Park has been part of the residential parking,” Reneau said. “The code for trailer parks is M-1, which requires one parking spot per trailer. Without the parking lot across the street, the trailer park itself is outside of code.”

Reneau said it appears that the cur­rent strategy of Pines Park Investors is to drive out residents by removing their parking.

“Pines Trailer Park is not closed yet and there is an active lawsuit against Pines Park Investors,” Reneau said. “If it’s successful, the parking lot will continue to be needed as part of the park. Currently it is zoned as C-1, which does not allow for a standalone parking lot, but it does allow for residential use and trailer park. Without this being made available for use by the trailer park residents, it’s a code compliance issue for the park, and the owner needs to be made to shut down the paid parking use and make it available for use by the park to meet those M-1 zoning requirements.”

Sam Negrin, a representative for Pines Park Investors, said, “Upon our acquisition of the trailer park we were told from the sellers, the agents and park manager that every single trailer lot came with parking. The ones who do not have parking because they, I don’t want to say the word, but illegally built lanais.”

Pines residents reacted in protest to Negrin’s comments.

“I’m not standing here saying that’s 100% accurate, from that reaction, but that is always the impression we’ve been under,” Negrin said.

Negrin said the park is governed by state statute and the park prospectus.

“The lot in the sale was addressed to us as an additional selling point, it comes with a parking lot, but is not required by the prospectus for the residents,” Negrin said. “The parking lot is not anything that’s entitled to the residents.”

“With those storms came the assumption from the residents that they don’t have to pay us anymore. Our sellers who we have the note with on the property, we still have to pay them in full every month,” Negrin said. “At the end of the day we’re a business just like any other business; we need our income to continue run­ning it. That is why we had to change the parking. This is a business. We aren’t a charity.”

“Let them rebuild so they can pay you,” Danielle Armaniaco said during her public comment.

“The evidence shows in fact that it was Pines parking, but aside from that, I don’t understand how we’re allowing that paid parking to operate today,” Bear said. “I’d like to understand how we’re not enforcing the code violation.”

Scaccianoce characterized Negrin’s claim that the parking lot was unrelated to the trailer park a “failed argument.”

“As professional as all these inves­tors are, I find it extremely difficult that they never saw the sign that said Pines Trailer Park parking on that lot when they were deciding to buy the property and they took the word of the Jacksons saying, ‘Oh, that’s just an ancillary lot, it has nothing to do with the trailer park’, when it was obviously marked before they bought it,” she said. “That should have been a red flag to Mr. Kaleta and his investment group to at least question what they had been told. I don’t remember when that parking lot wasn’t for the Pines.”

Chappie suggested a review of the parking lot by the city planner and code enforcement officer.

“Time’s running out for the Pines people and that’s not fair,” Chappie said, asking if the commission would like to wait until May 1 or take a stance right now.

“I think we should take a stance right now,” Commissioner Jan Vosburgh said.

Bear said he would like to advance it to code enforcement for a review and to make a decision about the current use of the parcel as a paid parking lot.

“There’s a pretty strong abundance of information that was never paid parking and shouldn’t be paid park­ing now,” Bear said. “This is a paid lot that was not approved.”

Commissioners unanimously approved a review by the city planner and building official about the use of paid parking on the site. The discus­sion will be continued at the May 1 commission meeting.

A GoFundMe page has been estab­lished for the Pines’ residents.