Skip to main content

Tag: Holmes Beach special magistrate

Special magistrate assesses fines in three cases

Special magistrate assesses fines in three cases

Written by SUN contributor on . Posted in Community News, Holmes Beach.

HOLMES BEACH – Special Magistrate Michael Connolly was not in a forgiving mood when faced with three repeat code violation cases during a recent hearing.

The Nov. 28 hearing kicked off with two cases of property neglect where the owner, John Booth, neglected to maintain the landscaping on both parcels after previously receiving a warning from Connolly. Booth argued that both properties, one at 6210 Marina Way and another at 203 Haverkos Court, should have been on the same landscaping schedule as his other two Holmes Beach properties. He said he was meeting with a landscaper later in the day to inspect both properties.

In both cases, Connolly ruled in favor of the city, awarding $50 per day in fines from Nov. 1 until the properties are brought into compliance and $127.24 in hearing fees for each case.

The third case Connolly ruled on involved a broken seawall cap at 506 83rd St. Speaking on behalf of the city, Building Official Neal Schwartz said that the previous code compliance ruling ordering the repair of the fractured seawall had partially been complied with by property owners Jane and Walter Depew as a permit for the repairs had been pulled and some repairs had taken place. However, Schwartz noted that the owners had not complied with the terms of the permit to have inspections done and the repairs that were done did not meet city codes.

The Depews were not present during the hearing.

Connolly ruled in favor of the city, awarding fines of $250 per day from Sept. 25 and $127.24 in hearing fees.

The next special magistrate hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 23 at 10 a.m.

Battle at Bali Hai continues

Battle at Bali Hai continues

Written by SUN contributor on . Posted in Community News, Holmes Beach.

HOLMES BEACH – Special Magistrate Michael Connolly ruled in the city’s favor in two code compliance cases against the owners of the Bali Hai Beach Resort, but attorney Louis Najmy says the fight’s not over.

Closing out an April 26 code compliance special magistrate hearing were two cases involving Bali Hai – one for having more units than allowed and another for renting electric low-speed vehicles on the property.

The first case involved renting GEM cars on the property without the rentals being an approved use under the site plan. Representing the resort’s ownership, including majority owner Shawn Kaleta, Najmy said that while the GEM cars are on the property at any given time, they are not rented by the resort. Instead, he said, they’re owned and rented through a third-party affiliate business, AMI GEM Cars, and he provided communication from the owners stating that they’re not otherwise involved with Bali Hai.

After looking at documentation from code compliance officers showing that the cars were available for rent through the resort’s front desk, Connolly ruled that the resort’s owners cannot rent or store the cars on the property and they cannot advertise them for rent through Bali Hai. He did acknowledge that if a guest of the resort has rented a GEM car and it’s parked on the property that it would not be a violation.

The resort’s website has since been updated to reflect that GEM cars are available but are rented through AMI GEM Cars, not Bali Hai.

The second case, concerning the existence of a non-permitted 43rd unit on the property, caused Najmy to ask Connolly to recuse himself, saying that he feels the special magistrate is biased against his client, Kaleta. Connolly said that he’s sorry Najmy feels that way but if the attorney puts his concerns in writing he’d have to consider it.

After hearing statements from code officers along with City Planner Bill Brisson, Connolly ruled that the resort’s owners are in violation of city codes, having one unit over the maximum of 42 that Bali Hai is grandfathered to have. While the various building plans presented by city staff and Najmy showed the unit in question as a rentable unit on some and a flex space without sleeping quarters on another, staff noted that they had observed the unit to have sleeping accommodations. Najmy argued that while the unit does exist, it’s used as a backup in case one of the other 42 units is in need of repairs and is unable to be rented. He said the resort never rents more than 42 units at a time.

City Attorney Erica Augello said it doesn’t matter if the resort only rents 42 units at a time; having a 43rd unit available puts the resort over its maximum density because of the ability to rent 43 units.

Connolly ordered that the resort’s owners come into compliance by removing the 43rd unit on the property and provide documentation to the building official proving that there are only 42 units available on the property.

The battle over uses at Bali Hai isn’t ending with the special magistrate hearings. Several cases are pending in Manatee County court appealing Connolly’s rulings against the resort owners and the site plan approval granted by Holmes Beach commissioners restricting uses on the property.

As of press time for The Sun, no hearings were scheduled in any of the pending cases.

Related coverage

 

Bali Hai owners hit with more code fines

 

City triumphs in noise violation hearing

Special magistrate postpones rat case

Special magistrate postpones rat case

Written by SUN contributor on . Posted in Community News, Holmes Beach.

HOLMES BEACH – Residents – one with a rat problem – expressed their disagreement with two of Special Magistrate Michael Connolly’s rulings during a late April code compliance hearing. Lois Huntington objected to the postponement of a case concerning whether or not a home at 2918 Gulf Drive meets minimum property standards, saying she would not be able to attend the subsequent hearing.

Huntington said she believes the Gulf Drive home has been abandoned for about 10 years and does not have basic utilities such as electricity and water turned on. She said that at her home, which backs into the property, she’s had severe issues with rats due to neglect at the property. The abandoned fruit trees on the property feed the rats, which come over to her home and have to be removed from her home, pool and car, she said.

The property is owned by Jeanette Heider and her daughter, who requested that the hearing be postponed until May 18 so that she is able to attend, due to her mother’s advanced age. Connolly granted the continuance and agreed to take Huntington’s statement into consideration when ruling on the code compliance issues at the Heider property.

Another case that didn’t sit well with residents was the variance request of Jerry Hepler for his property at 3104 Avenue E. Hepler said he submitted plans to the city’s building department to demolish the existing home and half of the garage, addressing a non-conformity on the property. The garage, built in 1946, was constructed across the property line and is shared with the owner to the rear of the Avenue E property.

After Connolly ruled in favor of Hepler, granting the variance to allow him to build a new home on the property and demolish his half of the existing garage, nearby property owners took to the podium to speak, with several speaking against Connolly granting the variance.

Connolly told the assembled residents that Hepler had met all of the conditions outlined in the city’s codes to be granted a variance, therefore the variance legally should be granted.

Related coverage

City triumphs in noise violation hearing

Bali Hai owners hit with more code fines

Special magistrate to levy fines in October

Rental property owners could be fined in October

Written by SUN contributor on . Posted in Community News, Featured, Holmes Beach.

HOLMES BEACH – Special Magistrate Michael Connolly is offering one last chance for property owners to come into compliance with his previous rulings on code violations before he levies fines in October.

Code compliance officers presented several cases before Connolly during a Wednesday, Sept. 16 hearing held at Holmes Beach City Hall. Seven of the cases presented were continued to a future hearing for reasons including pending potential changes to the city’s sign ordinance.

While those cases are set to be heard at a future special magistrate hearing, the cases that most concerned Connolly are the five in which he’s already ruled on alleged code violations and property owners have yet to come into compliance with local and state codes or his rulings.

During the September hearing, he gave the property owners a warning – if they don’t come into compliance before the next special magistrate hearing, scheduled for 10 a.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 21, he’s going to start instituting fines.

Anna Maria Island Inn

Three cases involve The Anna Maria Island Inn, 3501 Gulf Drive.

Speaking for the city, attorney Erica Augello said that the property’s sign, advertising daily rentals in a short-term rental zone, has been changed, but that the property’s advertising had not been brought into compliance. According to the special magistrate order, the resort’s owner, Shawn Kaleta, had until Sept. 18 to achieve full compliance with the order.

The order also states that the owner needs new, valid vacation rental certificates for the new units and to apply for demolition permits and demolish two illegally-constructed rental units on the bottom floor of the building. During a previous hearing, it was determined that the two ground floor units, located beneath the flood level established by the Florida Building Code, were constructed by a prior owner without permits, however, it was ruled that they’re now the current owner’s problem and cannot be rented.

Najmy argued that the owner has applied for the permits but the applications didn’t meet the city’s requirements for approval. He said he felt the requirements for approving the permits supplied by Schwartz are “overreaching.”

Augello also said that city code compliance officers have photographs alleging that the units are still being rented in violation of city codes and the special magistrate order. Speaking on behalf of the owner, Najmy said that the units are not being rented but that there are owners using the property. Connolly advised that Najmy may want to have those owners testify during the next special magistrate hearing when he’ll consider the fines.

Bali Hai

Two of the cases involve the Bali Hai Beach Resort, which is also the subject of a lawsuit with the city of Holmes Beach. The first case concerns work done on an accessory building without permits in violation of local and state building codes. The second case concerns selling alcohol on the premises without an approved site plan from the city; the alcohol sales are taking place in the accessory building.

The September special magistrate hearing was held two days before the deadline Connolly gave the property owner to submit a site plan for review and get the required building permits.

Augello said that the site plan has been submitted and is currently under review. To be approved, she said the site plan has to first go through a development review committee, then go to city commissioners for a work session and then a public hearing.

“There’s no way that they could’ve come into compliance by that date,” she said of the Sept. 18 deadline given by Connolly.

Where the property owner is still out of compliance, Augello said, is that none of the required building permits for work already done have been granted.

Representing the property owner, Bali Hai JV LLC, and manager Shawn Kaleta, was attorney Louis Najmy. Najmy argued that the permits have been applied for, but the applications were denied by the city’s building official. Building Official Neal Schwartz said that additional information is needed and the permit applications have to be resubmitted to be considered for approval.

Related coverage

 

City leaders, resort owner face off in court

 

Special magistrate rules on seven code issues

 

County judge leaves Holmes Beach case

Special magistrate rules in favor of city

Special magistrate rules in favor of city

Written by SUN contributor on . Posted in Community News, Holmes Beach.

HOLMES BEACH – There were eight cases on the docket for a code compliance special magistrate hearing July 31. Six cases were granted a continuance to a Sept. 11 hearing. The continuance requested for the additional two cases was denied and the two were heard and ruled on by Special Magistrate Michael Connolly.

The two cases that were heard both concerned properties owned by Anthony Properties Inc. The allegations against the properties, 302 28th St. and 402 28th St., included advertising for a length of stay less than 30 days and renting the properties for less than 30 days at a time. Both properties are in the R-1 zone which is only allowed to have rentals of 30 days or more. Neither property has a vacation rental certificate issued by the city.

Speaking for the property owner, who was absent from the hearing, was executive assistant Stacey Dorsey who asked for a continuance for both cases due to her employer’s absence on a family trip. Connolly denied the request, saying that with a notice of hearing mailed, posted at city hall and posted on the residence on July 4, the property owner had more than enough time to request a continuance prior to his trip. The request for a continuance was received by code compliance officers July 26.

In the case against the property owner at 302 28th St., Code Compliance Officer Nate Brown said that online the property is advertised as a minimum of three-night rental and that he was able to book the property for three nights. He said that booking for the property of three nights was disabled the day prior to the hearing. Code Compliance Officer James Thomas also testified that he had observed at least two times where the property was rented for less than 30 days. The first notice of violation was placed at the property on May 23.

The case against Anthony Properties at 402 28th St. contained much of the same information with officers providing photographic evidence that the property has been rented for less than 30 days at a time and that online advertising has been identified advertising the property for rent for a minimum of three-night rentals. Brown said that he was able to secure a reservation for the property for the three-night minimum online though that function was disabled on the advertisement the day prior to the hearing. He said that the advertisements for both properties stated a three-night minimum stay.

In both cases, Connolly ruled that the property owner has until Aug. 7 to correct the issues at the properties or a $250 per day fine per property will begin on Aug. 8 and continue until the issues are corrected. Also in both cases, the property owner was instructed to pay the $127.24 administrative fees for each case.

Both cases were placed on the Sept. 11 special magistrate hearing docket for an update.