Skip to main content

Tag: Louis Najmy

Pines residents question seawall cap permitting

Pines residents question seawall cap permitting

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – Some Pines Trailer Park residents are questioning whether permits exist for a seawall cap built in 2024 at the park that they say may have acted as a dam during the 2024 hurricanes, exacerbating the flooding of mobile homes.

The Sun requested a copy of the permit for the seawall cap on March 13 and the Bradenton Beach permit clerk wrote in an email that she was unable to locate such a permit. The seawall cap is adjacent to another seawall cap reportedly owned by the city.

The Sun asked Bradenton attorney Louis Najmy, who represents Pines Park Investors LLC and its manager, Shawn Kaleta, the owners of the Pines Trailer Park, for a copy of the permit on March 14 and received the following response by text: “While I was not able to confirm if the current ownership did the cap, we’ve confirmed with the city that permits are not required for caps only especially for flood protection when matching neighboring caps,” he wrote.

Pines residents question seawall cap permitting
The city of Bradenton Beach is unable to locate a permit for the installation of a seawall cap at the Pines Trailer Park in 2024. – Leslie Lake | Sun

However, Bradenton Beach Building Official Bill Palmer said a permit and inspection is required for a seawall cap.

“I cannot speak to this particular issue since I was not present at the time, but a permit and inspections are required for a seawall cap,” Palmer wrote in a March 17 email to The Sun. “Section 808 of the City’s Land Development Code regulates the repair and construction of seawalls.”

“We saw it being built around March last year,” Pines Park resident Joe Klingler said, adding that during the hurricanes last fall, water came up from the Gulf side and pooled at the seawall.

“Once it hit that filled up,” he said. “The damage was worse because of that – 100%. I’m a farmer. I built three lakes on my farm and there’s real strict rules. When you put a dam on a farm, you cannot put it against the water – it could come up into the neighbor’s property. This is the same thing. He built a dam knowing it was going to flood us.”

“Don’t get me wrong, we still would have had a flood, but we wouldn’t have had it hit the wall, stay and go higher and come back this way and sit here for four hours,” Klingler said. “That’s where you get the seepage and it’s more damage. When the water just comes up and goes away, we wouldn’t have even had to come up and replace our walls.”

He said the sea life that was once abundant beyond the seawall is no longer there.

“No matter what, they made a lake out of this place,” Klingler said. “We used to have manatees and fish at this wall, not anymore. The seagrass there is gone.”

Another Pines resident, who asked not to have his name used, said, “While proving motive in court is difficult, what’s undeni­able is that this 200-foot illegal structure acted as a dam, signifi­cantly worsening the flooding.”

In his email, Palmer outlined the requirements of permits and inspections: “808.6. Permits. An application for a permit to construct a seawall shall be submitted for review, along with plans and specifications. Permits for construction or repair of a seawall shall not be also a permit to dredge, fill, and grade.

“808.8. Specifications – Caps. Caps shall be cast over tops of the sheet piles and shall be continu­ous. Caps shall be reinforced by horizontal bars not smaller than No. 4, and shall have a minimum of two (2) inches of concrete cover in all directions. Design, spacing, and reinforcing shall be provided according to the referenced standards for formed in place concrete. When forms and reinforcing bars are in place, the building official shall cause an inspection to be made before the concrete is poured.

“808.9. Tiebacks. Vertical sheet piling bulkheads shall have tiebacks every 12 feet, and the anchor block shall be a minimum of 12 feet from and at right angles to the bulkhead. Tiebacks shall be hot dipped galvanized at minimum and not less than ¾” thick. Backfill shall be placed after tiebacks and anchor blocks shall have been inspected and approved by the city.”

Kaleta gets three extra days to fix parking lots

Kaleta gets three extra days to fix parking lots

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News, Featured.

BRADENTON BEACH – City building official Darin Cushing has given an extension of time to developer Shawn Kaleta to complete all city commission-required stipulations for temporary use permits for four paid parking lots.

The city has received and approved the site plans for the temporary use permits and has given Kaleta until Monday, Sept. 9 to complete the rest of the items stipulated by the commission, according to Cushing.

A professionally-designed site plan was a key component for the multiple conditions that had been put in place by the city commission before granting temporary use permits for the paid parking lots; 101 Bridge St. was approved on Feb. 15 and 206 Bay Drive N., 207 Church Ave. and 102 Third St. N. gained approval on March 21.

The extension of the deadline was granted in part due to a leaking artesian well at the Bridge Street site that is in the process of being capped.

“The well capping is still ongoing. I’m not sure how much more they have to do, but I do know the well turned out to be over 300 feet deep, and the entire length has to be filled with concrete, which cannot all be done in one day,” Cushing wrote The Sun. “We are monitoring the progress, as are SWFWMD and Manatee County.”

In an Aug. 1 letter to Kaleta, Cushing had written he intended to barricade the lots on Aug. 9 with a permanent closure deadline of Sept. 6 if all the stipulations had not been met.

“To date, very few, if any of these stipulations have been met, first and foremost, the presentation of professionally designed site plans in order to demonstrate that all of the other stipulations are being adhered to,” he wrote.

The parking lots were barricaded by the city on Aug. 9, but reopened the following day after intervention by Kaleta’s attorney, Louis Najmy.

The parking lot stipulations for commission approval at 101 Bridge St. include no entrance or exit from Bridge Street, installation of directional arrows, installation of landscaping less than 3 feet high, sidewalk installation north of Third Street South to hook into the corner sidewalk on Gulf Drive, installation of trolley benches and slab, installation of black and white signage and review of the site plan by the building official. The one-year temporary use permit runs through Feb. 15, 2025.

Some of the stipulations for 206 Bay Drive N., 102 Third St. N. and 207 Church Ave. included the building owner submitting a building permit application or land development approval request within eight months of the temporary use permit approval and limiting the parking of cars, with the number of parking spaces to be approved by the building official on a site plan.

Resort can’t use beach access for guest-only parking

City to stop resort from monopolizing beach access parking

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Community News, Featured, Manatee County.

BRADENTON BEACH – The city is addressing complaints about the city-owned beach access at the west end of 23rd Street North being used as guest-only parking for a privately owned resort.

According to the Manatee County Property Appraiser’s Office, the Seabreeze at Anna Maria Inn resort property located on both sides of the city-owned street end along the 2300 block of Gulf Drive North is owned by the Tri Star Properties LLC. According to state records, the LLC lists attorney Louis Najmy as its registered agent and Shawn Kaleta and Daniel Zoller as principals.

As of last week, several signs placed in or near the city-owned beach access area said, “Anna Maria Island Inn. Guest Parking Only. All Others May Be Towed at Owner’s Expense.”

Resort can’t use beach access for guest-only parking
As of last week, several signs were in place that improperly claimed the beach access parking area was for resort guests only. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

On June 16, Police Chief John Cosby told the city commission he received three complaints about the resort trying to use public property for guest-only parking.

Cosby also said the current parking configuration blocks and hinders access for his officers and other first responders who use that beach access point to respond to water rescues, drownings and other emergency situations. Cosby said he’s going to rope off a portion of the street-end for emergency responders regardless of what the commission decides to do with the public parking. Cosby said that will probably result in the loss of four parking spaces.

Resort can’t use beach access for guest-only parking
First responders use the 23rd Street North beach access when responding to emergencies. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Mayor John Chappie and Building Official Steve Gilbert noted Section 58-35 of the city’s code of ordinances prohibits parking any vehicle at or within 100 feet of a city-owned street-end or terminus along the Gulf of Mexico or Sarasota Bay unless it’s properly marked as city-provided parking.
After stressing the importance of protecting public access to the beaches, Chappie said, “We’ve got to take control of this situation. It is a problem because we’ve had complaints.”

Cosby said a properly designated public parking area requires parking bumpers and signs that designate those spaces for public use. He said the designated public spaces would then be available on a first-come, first-served basis which would not exclude resort guests, noting that overnight parking is not allowed in city-owned parking areas.

Gilbert said he’s not aware of any agreement between the resort and the city that allows for guest-only parking. Gilbert and Commissioner Ralph Cole noted it would take a four-fifths supra-majority vote of the commission and the majority support of the city’s registered voters for the city to vacate that city-owned property to the resort owners – an action Cosby said city voters would never support.

Commissioner Jan Vosburgh expressed concerns about negatively impacting the resort owner.

“Why would we want to do that?” she asked.

“Because it’s public property,” Cosby replied. “If you want to keep the willy-nilly parking, knock yourselves out. When I get complaints, I’m going to tell them to come here and talk to you. I can’t tell them that I am allowing somebody to break the law.”

Resort can’t use beach access for guest-only parking

The Seabreeze at Anna Maria Inn resort has structures located on both sides of the publicly owned beach access point. – Joe Hendricks | SunCommissioner Jake Spooner agreed that a private business should not have the exclusive use of public property, but he’s not in favor of eliminating those beach parking spaces either. Spooner said the resort managers would likely remove the guest-only parking signs if asked.
Cosby and Gilbert said it might be possible to configure the public parking in a manner that allows the resort to install two privately-owned, resort-only parallel parking spaces near the smaller building to the south.

Based on Cosby and Gilbert’s advice, the commission directed them and Public Works Director Tom Woodard to develop a plan for a designated public parking area at the 23rd Street North street-end, and to bring that plan back to the commission for additional discussion and approval.

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

Bali Hai owners hit with more code fines

Bali Hai owners hit with more code fines

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

HOLMES BEACH – The fight between city leaders and the ownership of the Bali Hai Beach Resort is continuing, with the Holmes Beach special magistrate levying fines in excess of $1,000 per day against the beachfront property, topping $176,000 so far with no end in sight.

Special Magistrate Michael Connolly vacated an order imposing fines against the property during a November hearing due to an issue with the proceedings not being recorded at a mid-2021 hearing. At a Jan. 19 code compliance special magistrate hearing, Connolly ruled against the resort in seven separate cases with hefty fines assessed.

In a case alleging change of use on the property – the operation of a bar/lounge without an approved site plan from the city – Connolly ruled in the city’s favor, imposing a $500-per-day fine from Oct. 12, 2021, until the property is brought into compliance by either obtaining an approved site plan, including the bar/lounge as an approved use on the property or demolishing the bar/lounge and returning it to its previous state. As of Jan. 30, the fines had reached $54,500. Connolly also assessed $127.24 in administrative costs.

Speaking on behalf of the property’s ownership, which includes local developer Shawn Kaleta, was attorney Louis Najmy. Najmy argued that the bar/lounge wasn’t a change of use, that it had been an existing use on the property, and therefore wouldn’t require a site plan approval.

In late 2021, Najmy took a site plan before the Holmes Beach city commission, requesting that it be approved to include the bar/lounge and the installation of a spa for the use of hotel guests. While commissioners approved a site plan, it didn’t include the bar/lounge requested by Najmy. That site plan approval has since expired due to not being accepted, signed and recorded by the property owners, meaning that the site plan approval process would have to begin again before it could potentially be approved by commissioners.

The conditional site plan approval is being used as an example of the city’s alleged “blackballing” against Kaleta and his business dealings in the city in his ongoing federal lawsuit.

Other code compliance cases heard by Connolly during the Jan. 19 hearing include repeat violations of work done without permits and work done in violation of a stop-work order.

In the case of work being done without permits, Najmy said, “The Bali Hai’s hands are tied” by the city because after-the-fact permits for the work on the property cannot be issued until a site plan is approved by commissioners.

Speaking on behalf of the city, attorney Erica Augello said that Najmy was “asking for forgiveness instead of permission” and argued that if his client had gone through the proper channels before doing construction work at the Bali Hai, neither party would be in this place where fines were being assessed. She also noted that the resort’s ownership had the opportunity to accept an approved site plan from the city and refused.

Connolly assessed fines of $500 per day from June 11, 2021, until the property is brought into compliance, which is $116,500 as of Jan. 30, plus administrative fees of $127.24.

In the repeat violation case of doing construction in violation of a stop-work order, Connolly ruled that the violation was irreparable because the work has already been completed, assessing a flat $5,000 fine, the maximum allowed under city codes for an irreparable code violation, and $127.24 in administrative fees.

In the case of operating a bar/lounge and spa without a business tax receipt (BTR) issued by the city, Connolly also found a violation. Since it wasn’t a repeat violation, Connolly didn’t assess a fine but ordered that the property come into compliance and receive its BTRs for the two uses by Jan. 31 or face future fines. He did assess administrative costs of $127.24.

The issue that Najmy noted with receiving the BTRs from the city is that the property cannot have any outstanding code violations and receive a BTR. Connolly said he wouldn’t hold on fines due to any pending litigation.

“The cost of doing business in Holmes Beach is complying with the law,” Augello said.

“I really just want this to end,” Najmy said, arguing that the city has placed his client in an impossible situation.

Augello said that if the resort’s owner wants issues with the city to end, they should comply with city codes and cease operations of the bar/lounge and spa until they fix the code issues on the property and can receive the BTRs.

In three cases concerning electrical, plumbing and A/C work done without a permit, Connolly ruled that there was a violation and gave the Bali Hai’s ownership until Jan. 31 to obtain the three required permits or face additional fines at an upcoming code compliance hearing. He assessed $127.24 in administrative costs in all three cases.

For those keeping score, that’s the city of Holmes Beach at seven with the Bali Hai at zero, though Najmy has more than one court case pending appealing the decisions of the city’s representatives and alleging wrongdoing against Kaleta.

Connolly said that while he did assess fines against the resort and its ownership, he doesn’t believe that continuing to assess fines is going to remedy the issues between the city and the resort. He encouraged both parties to meet and try to work out a feasible way forward that would remedy the code violations instead of both sides continuing to pursue the matter through hearings.

Related coverage

 

Builder, city head back to court

 

Special magistrate reconsiders fines

New owners take over Beach Bistro

New owners take over Beach Bistro

Written by SUN contributor on . Posted in Business, Restaurants | Bars.

HOLMES BEACH – It’s the end of an era at the Beach Bistro.

The award-winning beachfront restaurant’s owners of more than 36 years, Sean Murphy and Susan Timmins, have sold the restaurant to Anna Maria Island developer Shawn Kaleta and attorney Louis Najmy.

New owners take over Beach Bistro
Located right on the sand, the Beach Bistro has an excellent sunset view. – Submitted

The change of ownership was announced on Jan. 27 in a newsletter emailed to fans of the restaurant. The same day, a change was registered with the Florida Secretary of State naming Najmy Thompson P.L. as the registered agent for the property owner, Beach Bistro Inc. The same filing named attorney Louis Najmy as president, director and secretary, and developer Shawn Kaleta as director and vice-president.

In the newsletter, Murphy said that while he and Timmins have enjoyed raising their family around the Bistro and working with the team at the restaurant, they felt that it was time to step back and hand the reins over to a new team of owners, though the names of the new owners were not disclosed in the email.

“We have a long history, a great tradition, of incredibly talented culinarians. We feel strongly that the great team running the Bistro now is one of our finest. Which is why we feel it is the right time for us to step aside and to take pleasure in watching this special little place continue to soar without us. The Bistro staff will do an excellent job of carrying on the Bistro tradition. The people who made it great will continue to make it great. We won’t be far away,” Murphy said in the email.

Continuing, he stated that the couple plans to focus their efforts on their craft bar, The Doctor’s Office, and its adjacent event space, The Doctor’s Garden, both in Holmes Beach.

New owners take over Beach Bistro
Couple Susan Timmins and Sean Murphy opened the Beach Bistro at its current location in 1986. – Submitted

Previously, Murphy and Timmins owned Eat Here, a bistro located in The Shoppes at Waterline in Holmes Beach. However, the bistro was closed, first due to COVID-19 precautions and then due to a gas leak caused by work done in other parts of the shopping center. After closing for renovations in June 2021, Eat Here never reopened.

On the Beach Bistro website, another restaurant, The Bistro BLVD, is listed to be located in downtown Sarasota at the BLVD condominium complex. However, that restaurant has yet to open.

The Beach Bistro has received recognitions from Zagat, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the James Beard Foundation, Food & Wine and the St. Petersburg Times, among others.

Special magistrate reconsiders fines

Special magistrate reconsiders fines

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

HOLMES BEACH – This month’s code compliance special magistrate hearing was all about fines – reducing and eliminating them.

First up was a case involving 305 73rd St. and owners 305 73rd LLC. Though Special Magistrate Michael Connolly had already issued a final order imposing fines, attorney Louis Najmy asked for a reduction in fines on the owners’ behalf.

The violations found against the property in previous code compliance hearings included a dilapidated structure that the city had to secure against intrusion and engage a contractor to remove potentially dangerous building materials from the yard. The city also did not receive a timely response from the property owner, who did work outside the scope of permits.

Speaking on behalf of the city, attorney Erica Augello argued that the property has had two stop-work orders issued on it since code violations were first identified in September 2019. She said the property finally came into compliance with city codes and Connolly’s previous rulings on Aug. 31, 2021.

The total outstanding fines on the property were $51,900 plus $127.24 in administrative costs.

Najmy argued that his clients tried to work with the city but proceedings were delayed due to COVID-19 and other issues.

Connolly agreed to lessen the fines from $150 per day to $100 per day, bringing the total down to $34,500 plus the $127.24 administrative costs. Najmy said the reduction in fines should prevent the matter from being heard in Manatee County district court.

Another of Najmy’s clients, Bali Hai JV LLC, owners of the Bali Hai Beach Resort, had two matters involving fines heard by Connolly. In both cases, the city petitioned Connolly to rescind the fines against the property due to a due process issue where the hearing in which fines were levied against the resort’s ownership was not recorded. Since there is ongoing litigation in Manatee County circuit court between the resort owners and city leaders and the recording is a matter of due process, Augello asked Connolly to vacate the prior final orders and orders imposing fines in two of the nine code compliance cases against the resort. Augello stipulated that she would like the orders vacated without prejudice to allow the city to have the cases reheard and fines imposed for the alleged violations.

While Najmy said his clients do not object to the vacation of the fines, he does object to the reason for the city asking the fines to be vacated. He said he doesn’t believe that the city’s representatives were being totally honest about why they were asking for the reconsideration of the fines and final orders by the special magistrate.

Connolly ruled in favor of vacating the final orders and fines without prejudice.

The next code compliance special magistrate hearing is scheduled for Jan. 19 at Holmes Beach City Hall.

Related coverage

 

Holmes Beach leaders and Bali Hai owners face off

 

Legal issues put a damper on wedding plans

 

Bali Hai legal dispute continues

 

Commission will discuss rescinding pier lease decision

Commission to reconsider pier lease decision

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Anna Maria, Community News, Featured.

ANNA MARIA – On Wednesday, the Anna Maria City Commission voted 4-1 in favor of authorizing Mayor Dan Murphy to begin pier lease negotiations with restaurateur Sean Murphy.

Next Thursday, May 14, at the request of Commissioner Amy Tripp, the commission will reconsider that decision.

When contacted Friday, Tripp declined to comment on why she’s asking the commission to take such action.

Referred to as Thomas Sean Murphy in his bid proposal, Murphy is the owner-operator of the Beach Bistro and Eat Here restaurants and the Doctor’s Office craft cocktail bar in Holmes Beach.

During a special city commission meeting Wednesday, Commissioner Jon Crane made the motion to authorize Mayor Murphy to begin pier lease negotiations with Sean Murphy. Commissioners Joe Muscatello, Mark Short and Tripp supported Crane’s motion. Commission Chair Carol Carter opposed the motion.

The commission majority chose Sean Murphy’s offer over the proposal submitted by the Ugly Grouper LLC headed by G. (Gary) Michael Ross. That proposal notes the Ugly Grouper restaurant in Holmes Beach is co-owned by Scott Rolen – a retired Major League Baseball player. Thad Treadwell is listed as general manager.

On Friday, the city released the agenda for the May 14 meeting. The agenda item says, “Motion to rescind action taken at meeting of May 6.”

The agenda item includes a subsequent request from Mayor Murphy that says, “Consideration of City Pier lease RFP proposals – if previous motion is successful.”

During Wednesday’s meeting, Mayor Murphy presented the commission with three options: Choose a preferred bidder to begin negotiations with, reject both bids and reissue the RFP that was issued before the COVID-19 pandemic struck or take no action at the time. It is not known what options will be considered at Thursday’s meeting, which begins at 2 p.m.

Because city hall remains closed to the public, the meeting will be conducted via conference call. To attend the telephonic meeting, call 1-408-650-3123 and enter the access code, 590303789. Public comment will be allowed.

Bid proposals

Ugly Grouper LLC offered to pay the city $18,000 per month in base rent to lease the city-owned restaurant and bait shop buildings at the T-end of the new Anna Maria City Pier. Sean Murphy offered $14,000 per month in base rent.

The $4,000 difference equates to the Ugly Grouper offering $48,000 more per year and at least $480,000 more over the course of a 10-year lease, not including any periodic rent increases included in the long-term lease.

The Ugly Grouper and Sean Murphy also submitted alternative rent proposals based on a percentage of the revenue generated. Mayor Murphy said the pre-COVID-19 estimated annual revenues for the pier-based business operations were $3 million to $4 million.

The city will retain control of the pier walkway, the boat landing and outdoor public space at the T-end of the pier. When opened after the COVID-19 concerns subside, the fishing pier and public restrooms will remain open for 24 hours a day.

The Ugly Grouper proposal says the Ugly Grouper restaurant opened in 2016 and has produced greater than 10% bottom line profits after budgeting a monthly rent of approximately $10,000.

The Ugly Grouper proposal references a partnership with Project Corporate, an entity that provides administrative and promotional support for the Ugly Grouper and other restaurants in Indiana not co-owned by Ross and Rolen.

The proposal says the Ugly Grouper is pre-approved for a $2 million line of credit that can be used for buildout, and Mason Martin Builders provided an estimate of slightly more than $1 million to complete the interior buildouts.

According to Sean Murphy’s proposal, he has an available cash commitment of $400,000 from the Robert Schwaeger Family Trust, $300,000 in commercial financing and a liquor license valued at $360,000.

“The Beach Bistro also has a full complement of restaurant equipment available to outfit the operation,” Murphy’s proposal says.

His proposal estimates $300,000 in renovation completion costs and an additional $50,000-plus for furnishings and light wares.

“A final corporate entity has not been selected for the operation. Sean Murphy will be the principal,” his proposal says.

Financials

According to the Florida Secured Transaction Registry website, a State of Florida Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) financing statement form was filed on June 10, 2016 that lists Beach Bistro Inc. and Thomas Sean Murphy as the debtor and Shawn Kaleta and attorney Louis Najmy as the secured parties. The agreement pertains to a commercial unit/condominium identified as Resort Sixty-Six – a resort that shares the same 6600 Gulf Drive address as the Beach Bistro.

The financing statement does not list a dollar amount but says, “This financing statement covers the following collateral: All furniture, fixtures, equipment, alcohol and beverage licenses.”

That agreement was terminated on May 3, 2018.

According to official records posted at the Manatee County Clerk of the Circuit Court website, on May 5, 2016, Beach Bistro Inc. and Thomas Sean Murphy entered into a $250,000 mortgage agreement with Kaleta and Najmy. Murphy is listed as the mortgagor. Kaleta is listed as the 1/5 mortgagee and Najmy is listed as the 4/5 mortgagee. On June 17, 2016, a mortgage modification document was filed that added $90,000 to the previous mortgage agreement.

On Jan. 10, 2020, a mortgage and security agreement originally dated March 12, 2018 was filed for a $125,000 mortgage agreement between Murphy, Kaleta and Najmy.

On January 31, Eat Here AMI LLC and Murphy entered into a $60,000 mortgage agreement with Mask Cigar & Liquor LLC – an LLC that lists Vimal Patel and Darshit Patel in Sarasota as authorized persons and managing members.

Eat Here operates in leased space at the Waterline Shoppes plaza owned by Waterline Shoppes LLC. The 14,376-square-foot restaurant, retail and office building is currently listed for sale at the Ian Black Real Estate website for $3.2 million.

The only official record located in association with the Ugly Grouper is a 2016 Holmes Beach city resolution pertaining to a revised site plan.

Official records pertaining to Gary Michael Ross list two non-monetary affidavits associated with FL Blue Sky Properties LLC and the 50 North Shore Drive 1 LLC.

Menus and fishing

“To accomplish rent goals for the city, the product offerings will have to make higher check averages possible. We can’t get the rent the city needs with just hot dogs,” Sean Murphy’s proposal says.

According to Murphy’s proposal, the food will be authentic and chef-crafted in-house, with an emphasis on fresh seafood, top quality meats, cheese and charcuterie. The bar offerings will feature a “creative cocktail list,” traditional American beers, craft beers and a moderate wine list.

The Ugly Grouper proposal says, “We want City Pier to be the best dining experience on the Island, which would include live music. We plan to provide breakfast, lunch and dinner. Our menu will give a variety of local and fresh items at price points that are comparable with most restaurants on Anna Maria Island.”

It also says, “We will also offer a fishing experience that even the most novice fisherman can enjoy. Our goal is to provide guests with assistance, if needed, and promote the enjoyment of the fishing pier.”

During public comment at Wednesday’s meeting, it was suggested that the pier tenant, whoever that may be, consider selling affordable burgers, hot dogs and chips at the bait shop for the families and fishermen and fisherwomen on limited budgets. Tripp and Short expressed informal support for that suggestion.

Kaleta Settlement

Kaleta to receive $1 million settlement

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Anna Maria, Community News.

ANNA MARIA – Developer Shawn Kaleta and his Beach to Bay construction company will receive a $1 million payment according to settlement terms negotiated to end a federal lawsuit filed against the city of Anna Maria in 2016.

Because of an insurance policy the city holds through the Florida League of Cities, the $1 million payment will be made by the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust and not by city taxpayers. The insurance policy is capped at $1 million in terms of settlement payments.

The financial terms were negotiated by Kaleta’s attorneys and the attorneys provided to the city through the Florida League of Cities.

The federal lawsuit filed with United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida last year named the city of Anna Maria and Mayor Dan Murphy as defendants.

The lawsuit alleged city officials made unwritten and erroneous interpretations of city codes, policies and practices that were applied solely to Kaleta and Beach to Bay’s efforts to construct vacation rental homes. The suit alleged the city’s actions damaged Kaleta and Beach to Bay in terms of lost business, reduced property values and impairment to reputation.

Kaleta’s attorneys sought a declaratory judgement stating the city’s actions violated his rights to free speech, due process and equal protection. They also sought a federal court order for city officials to stop making false and slanderous statements about Kaleta and Beach to Bay.

“In consideration of the promises made herein, the parties release, acquit and forever discharge one another of any and all claims, causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, damages, judgment and demands whatsoever in any way related to the litigation,” said the mutual release and settlement agreement approved by city commissioners on Nov. 9.

The following day, attorney Louis Najmy commented on behalf of his client.

“It meant a great deal to Shawn Kaleta to now have the apology and retraction from the city. We can now attempt to wipe away the very incorrect and untrue statements made by the city. And we look forward to a city process that is fair and transparent,” Najmy said.

Murphy also commented on the settlement.

“There was no city money, whether from ad valorem taxes or otherwise, used to settle the case. No one from the city was involved in any way with the negotiation or payment of any monetary settlement with Mr. Kaleta. The city at no time admitted any liability to Mr. Kaleta and continues to deny liability. What the insurance company did was the business of the insurance company,” Murphy said.

On Oct. 12, city commissioners unanimously approved the preliminary, non-monetary portion of the settlement agreement.

“The settlement does not admit any fault on the part of the city, but will resolve conflicts involved and will avoid a trial,” said the city resolution presented then by City Attorney Becky Vose.