HOLMES BEACH – In November, Holmes Beach’s registered voters will determine whether an undeveloped and vacant city-owned alley will be vacated to the owner of the beachfront property at 2902 Avenue E.
The vacation request pertains to a 10-foot-wide city-owned alley situated between two parcels on a currently vacant lot that previously contained two residential structures.
In 2024, Blowfish Island Inc. purchased the beachfront property from PL Beach House LLC for $7.25 million. Blowfish Island Inc. is a business entity that lists Benjamin ten Haff as its manager. Ten Haff hopes to redevelop the beachfront property with the construction of three new homes.
The city charter requires all vacations of city-owned land to be approved by a majority vote of Holmes Beach’s registered voters.
During two public hearings in 2025, the city commissioners unanimously approved the city ordinance that provides the commission’s support for the requested property vacation. The ordinance was to be followed later by a city resolution that includes the ballot language to be presented to city voters in the election that will conclude on Nov. 3.
During the June 23 city commission meeting, Holmes Beach Director of Development Services Chad Minor presented the city commission with the resolution and the proposed ballot language that reads as follows:
“Shall the city vacate an unused and inaccessible ten-foot-wide alleyway bisecting the coastal residential property at 2902 Avenue East from north to south, where such alleyway shall be vacated in favor of the property owner for that property, where such alleyway is not directly connected to any public right-of-way, prior rights of way have already been vacated, and the city commission approved such vacation by supermajority vote at public hearings?”
Voters will be asked to vote “Yes” to approve vacating the alleyway or vote “No” to deny vacating the alleyway.
The meeting packet included a staff report that said, “The vacated alleyway is not directly connected to any public right-of-way, as those rights of way have already been vacated.”
The staff report notes the alley is 10 feet wide, 150 feet long and contains 1,500 square feet of gross land area. The alley bisects the parent parcels to the north and south that total 34,000 square feet.
“The parent parcel was platted for six lots with three lots on either side of the alley. The platted lots were generally 50 feet wide and 100 feet in depth,” the staff report says. “The property will continue to have ingress and egress from Avenue E, an improved right of way. The alleyway is totally inaccessible by and to the public. There is an existing public beach access located to the immediate south of the subject property.”
Attorney Garret Barnes is representing ten Haff and Blowfish Island Inc. in this matter.
In an April 2025 letter he sent to Minor, Barnes wrote, “My client owns six buildable lots however, as mentioned, and as an accommodation to the city, they will only build on three of those six lots. This would be the benefit to the city and neighbors as the density is cut in half.”
With ten Haff in attendance during the June 23 meeting, Commissioner Jessica Patel asked if vacating the alleyway equates to the city giving the land away with no payment received in return.
In response, City Attorney Randy Mora characterized the measure as a housekeeping action, noting the alley benefits the adjacent property owner while providing no use to the city.
He said the city-owned alley prevents the property from being developed as currently desired.
Mora noted the commission previously decided the city did not need the property in question for city use.
While addressing the commission, Barnes said when the six lots were purchased that alleyways on either side had already been vacated, but the remaining alleyway had not.
“We don’t know why it wasn’t vacated,” he said.
Nancy Deal was the only resident to provide public comment on the request to vacate the alley.
“Land is precious on this Island. When a chunk of it is given away, it requires a serious decision about the ramifications and the setting of precedent,” she said. “In this case, the hunk of land apparently has been public property and will probably bring the recipient significant financial gain. I remember the Cooper property trade-off. The city of Holmes Beach did receive recompense in the form of some land in exchange for vacating city property. As a taxpayer, I ask what of the city of Holmes Beach receiving in exchange for vacating this particular public property?”
With Commissioner Dan Diggins absent, the commissioners voted 4-0 in favor of adopting Resolution 26-06. City voters will now have the final say in the matter.
