Skip to main content

Tag: Shawn Kaleta

New hotel complex proposed for Bridge Street

New hotel complex proposed for Bridge Street

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News, Featured.

BRADENTON BEACH – A major development permit application and initial site plans have been submitted for the proposed development of a hotel complex at the corner of Bridge Street and Gulf Drive South.

Architect Shaun Luttrell submitted the land development code/major development permit application and site plan documents on Dec. 2. The permit application lists Shawn Kaleta and Jacob Spooner as the owners of the various properties associated with the proposed development.

Kaleta is a well-known developer on Anna Maria Island. Spooner is a Bradenton Beach businessman and commercial property owner and a member of the Bradenton Beach City Commission and the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency. As a sitting city commissioner, Spooner would have to recuse himself from any commission discussions and votes pertaining to the proposed hotel development.

The submitted site plan proposes 206,987 square feet of total development with a total of 103 hotel units. The ground-level floor plan includes a miniature golf course located along Gulf Drive South and retail space located along Bridge Street, west of the existing Spooner-owned Bridge Street Bazaar and Daiquiri Deck building.

New hotel complex proposed for Bridge Street
This floor plan illustrates the ground-level, first-floor elements of the proposed development. – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted

The first-floor plan includes additional retail space east of the Bridge Street Bazaar building, the main hotel entrance, the hotel lobby, a coffee bar, a hotel lounge and hotel offices. The site plan indicates 114 regular parking spaces, eight handicapped parking spaces and four golf cart parking spaces for a total of 126 parking spaces.

The second-floor plan includes 47 hotel units, some with private balconies, a kitchen area, a dining area, a fitness area and a storage/maintenance area. The third-floor plan includes 56 hotel units, some with private balconies, a conference room, a spa and a housekeeping area. The floor plans also include a rooftop swimming pool and deck. The anticipated cost of the hotel project is not known.

Properties included

The permit application lists the following addresses for the properties that would be combined to develop the hotel and other amenities as proposed: 219 Gulf Drive S., 101, 105 and 117 Bridge St. and 106, 108, 110 and 112 Third St. S.

New hotel complex proposed for Bridge Street
The currently vacant building at 101 Bridge St. is among those that would be demolished to make room for the new hotel. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

According to the Manatee County Property Appraiser’s Office, the property at 101 Bridge St. S. is owned by the 205 Sycamore LLC, which, as of April, listed attorney Louis Najmy as its registered agent and Kaleta as a manager and authorized person. The Najmy and Kaleta-affiliated Tampa Bayshore Trust LLC owns the adjacent hotel property at 105 Bridge St. and the property at 106 Third St. S.

According to the property appraiser’s office, the undeveloped property at 108 Third St. S., the neighboring properties at 110 and 112 Third St. S. and the commercial property at 117 Bridge St. are owned by Bridge Street Bazaar Inc., which, as of April, listed Spooner and his mother, Deborah Sniadach, as its registered officers.

New hotel complex proposed for Bridge Street
The proposed development includes 103 hotel units. – Submitted | City of Bradenton Beach

According to the property appraiser’s office, the former Joe’s Eats & Sweets property at 219 Gulf Dr. S. (at the corner of Third Street South) is owned by AMI Plaza LLC, which, as of March, listed attorney William Saba as its manager and Firkins Nissan Inc. as authorized persons. AMI Plaza LLC is not referenced as a property owner in the permit application.

The Sun reached out to Saba and Najmy with no reply as of press time to determine whether AMI Plaza LLC is involved in the proposed hotel development.

Long road ahead

“The plans are very preliminary,” Bradenton Beach Building Official Steve Gilbert told The Sun on Friday.

According to Gilbert, a proposed development carrying a major development designation must be reviewed by the city’s Planning and Zoning Board and then approved by the city commission. Gilbert said multiple land development code interpretations will be required and multiple land use issues will need to be addressed before the proposed development can be advertised for public hearings before the planning board and city commission.

According to the permit application, the present and proposed zoning designations for the various properties are C-2 (general commercial) and the present and proposed comprehensive plan use designations are Mixed Use Bridge Commercial.

Another vacation rental home deemed public nuisance

Another vacation rental home deemed public nuisance

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

ANNA MARIA – Due to repeated noise violations, Special Magistrate Gerald Buhr has deemed a vacation rental home at 205 South Bay Blvd. to be a public nuisance.

Buhr awarded the city a $150 administrative fee, $62 for postage fees and $100 for the services of the court reporter who transcribed the hearing.

The vacation rental is owned by Shawn Kaleta’s Beach to Bay Investments and managed by his AMI Locals property management and real estate company.

In May, Buhr declared a vacation rental home at 313 Magnolia Ave. to be a public nuisance due to three noise violation citations being issued to guests staying there during a 12-month period. That property is owned by the Mangoes on Magnolia LLC which lists Mukesh Patel and three others as its authorized representatives. In June, the city commission authorized City Attorney Becky Vose to file a civil lawsuit against those property owners seeking a one-year suspension of that property’s city-issued vacation rental license. That case has not yet gone to court.

The city commission has not yet discussed whether a similar lawsuit will be filed against the owner of the rental home at 205 South Bay.

City’s case

Buhr presided over the code enforcement hearing at city hall on July 26. While presenting the city’s case, Anna Maria Code Enforcement Manager Sandy Olson noted three noise ordinance violation citations were issued within a six-month period to guests staying in that vacation rental home. The noise violations occurred on Sept. 5, 2021, Jan. 22 and March 5.

“The city is also seeking a ruling that the property at 205 South Bay Boulevard is a public nuisance. Section 26-95 of the city of Anna Maria’s code of ordinances states that three or more violations occurring at the same premises within any 12-month rolling period shall be deemed prima facia evidence that the premises is a public nuisance,” Olson said.

Manatee County Sheriff’s Deputy Adesh Ragoonanan issued all three noise violation citations and he testified to the validity of each citation. He said all three violations involved loud talking and loud music coming from the pool area. Olson noted each of the violating guests paid the $35 fine and the property owner and management company were notified of the violations.

Testimony was also provided by two full-time city residents who live near the vacation rental home.

Tara O’Brien said she and her family live around the corner and three homes away from the vacation rental home. She said she’s called the sheriff’s office twice about that home. She said the first time was in September when a DJ was playing loud music after midnight.

Olson asked O’Brien how that noise impacts her life. O’Brien said she has two teenage boys and the noise heard coming from the rental home late at night impacts the family’s sleep.

Christopher Siddall’s home is located behind the vacation rental home. He said the shouting and screaming at the property starts during the day, stops when the guests go out for dinner and resumes when they return. Siddall said he’s called the sheriff’s office eight to10 times since the beginning of the year and all those calls were made after 10 p.m.

Olson asked Siddall how the noise impacts his life.

“It impacts me a lot. I get to bed around 10 and I get up early in the morning. When I hear that it’s not just annoying, it’s frustrating to think that they have no courtesy. They don’t appreciate that people do actually live there,” he said.

Olson noted that the owner of the home at 205 South Bay previously settled a Burt Harris claim with the city that allows for a maximum occupancy of 18 guests. The standard maximum occupancy allowed in Anna Maria is eight.

Representatives’ response

Attorney Louis Najmy and AMI Locals General Manager Eric Pullen represented the property owner and property management company at the hearing.

“We’re not here to contest the validity of these violations. We stand with the same goal as the city as to not have noise violations at these properties and not to disturb neighbors. We implemented a lot of things with respect to this home to make sure that doesn’t continue,” Najmy said.

He said it’s important to recognize that noise ordinance violations are not fully under the control of the property owner or management company, but it is ultimately the responsibility of those entities to respond to noise violations occurring at their properties.

Najmy said AMI Locals represents hundreds of vacation rental properties in the city of Anna Maria and the property in question is the only one to receive three noise complaints.

He asked Pullen to describe the measures AMI Locals put in place to alleviate future noise concerns and complaints at 205 South Bay. Pullen said AMI Locals uses eight different methods to make its rental guests aware of the city’s noise ordinance, the city’s overnight quiet hours from 10 a.m. to 8 a.m. and the possibility of being evicted if need be. Pullen said AMI Locals encourages its guests to leave the pool area at 10 p.m. and go inside.

Najmy noted incoming rental guests receive four communications from AMI Locals before they arrive at the property, including a phone call and an email. They also receive a text message after they arrive. Pullen said an information package and a plexiglass information stand is placed in plain view inside each rental property and they both reference the noise ordinance.

Buhr noted some AMI Locals properties have noise meters in the pool area. Pullen said there’s not a noise meter at the 205 South Bay property, but Najmy said one will be installed.

Participating by phone, Vose asked what measures are taken to ensure that a rental home that allows 18 guests isn’t used by younger people to throw parties. She also asked if AMI Locals pre-screens its renters.

Pullen said the majority of the company’s large rental homes are rented by multi-generational families or multiple families that vacation together. Pullen said the renters are not screened, but the person renting the property has to be at least 25 years old.

“Would you admit that at this point your efforts, sadly, as to this particular property, have not worked?” Vose asked.

In response, Pullen said, “The property’s been occupied from the date of the last incidence until now and we haven’t had another violation. I would think some of the steps we’re taking are working.”

Before issuing his ruling, Buhr said, “You’ve taken a lot of steps, and that is laudable, but none of the steps appear to have worked and stopped the violations.”

Najmy suggested the city increase the $35 fine for a first noise ordinance violation to a significantly higher amount. He also said AMI Locals was considering requiring a larger deposit and deducting from that deposit an amount 10 or more times greater than the fine associated with a noise violation.

Najmy offered to open a direct line of communication with the neighbors that would allow them to contact someone at AMI Locals before contacting the sheriff’s office. Siddall said he liked that idea.

Regarding the city-requested nuisance declaration, Najmy said, “Don’t shut us down. Based on everything AMI Locals has done, everything the owner has done, it would be an extreme hardship to shut down a house given that we’ve made those efforts.”

Vose said the city wasn’t asking for any other rental property owned by Beach to Bay Investments and managed by AMI Locals to be declared a public nuisance.

“This one is a nuisance. There is something different about the house,” she said, again referencing the 18-person occupancy limit.

She suggested the management company implement a voluntary occupancy reduction.

“We do request that this house be deemed a nuisance,” Vose concluded.

When issuing his ruling, Buhr said, “I don’t have the jurisdiction or authority to shut you down. That would have to be done by a judge and that would have to be a circuit court case. My position is to determine whether those violations occurred and if those violations rise to the level of nuisance. I do find that those violations were committed. I do find that is a public nuisance.”

Related coverage

 

City files lawsuit against vacation rental owners

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.

Builder and city head back to court

Builder, city head back to court

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

HOLMES BEACH – City leaders and local developer/builder Shawn Kaleta are no strangers to meeting each other in court. This time, Kaleta’s attorney, Michelle Grantham, has filed a suit against city leaders in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division alleging that city leaders are discriminating against him and his various businesses in the city.

In the paperwork filed Dec. 31, Kaleta states he is filing for damages, along with declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging deprivation of property and civil rights by the city. The filing alleges that city leaders have violated Kaleta’s right to free speech and equal protection under the law, both protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit argues that city leaders have passed regulations specifically targeting Kaleta and his businesses, particularly concerning the development and regulation of short-term rentals, and that he is held to a different standard by the city for the operation of his businesses than other business owners. It also argues that Kaleta, along with his development and rental properties, are singled out by the city for code enforcement and other potential violations and that city leaders publicly subject Kaleta to slander and blackballing.

Included in the lawsuit is the ongoing struggle between the city and Kaleta over the operation of a bar/lounge at the Bali Hai Beach Resort. Kaleta and Louis Najmy, serving as the attorney for the resort’s owners, have argued before the Holmes Beach code compliance special magistrate and city commissioners that there was a bar/lounge previously existing on the property, granting Kaleta the right to have one serving alcohol to patrons now. Due to the remodel of the space used as a bar/lounge at the Bali Hai, along with the introduction of a spa service area and construction work done at the site without prior building permits, the property ended up before city commissioners in 2021 for a site plan approval. After being discussed by commissioners at several meetings, commissioners eventually voted to not allow the operation of the bar/lounge on the resort property, one of the stipulations of the site plan approval. This action is listed in the current lawsuit as one example of how city leaders are allegedly discriminating against Kaleta and his businesses.

The lawsuit also alleges that the city and its special magistrate, attorney Michael Connolly, who is not mentioned by name in the paperwork, have arbitrarily regulated and fined Kaleta’s businesses.

The relief sought through the court by Grantham on Kaleta’s behalf includes having a trial by jury, a declaratory judgment on the city’s policies, interpretations, practices and actions as they related to the protection of Kaleta’s rights to free speech and equal protection clauses under the Constitution, an order by the court granting Kaleta injunctive relief ordering the city “to cease the unconstitutional and unlawful practices directed at plaintiff’s (Kaleta’s) ability to be properly notified and represented at code enforcement hearings, be treated fairly at code enforcement hearings, conduct his business, including hotel/motel and short-term vacation rentals, in compliance with city code and without arbitrary interruption by the city, and order the city, their officers, agents, employees and attorneys to cease from making false and slanderous public statements regarding plaintiff and his businesses and to record all future code enforcement hearings.” Other relief sought would require the city to issue a public apology to Kaleta through local newspapers and award Kaleta damages, pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

At press time for The Sun, the case had not been assigned to a judge and no hearings have been scheduled.

In the Manatee County Circuit Court, Kaleta had a win against the city as Judge Charles Sniffen denied the city of Holmes Beach’s motion to dismiss the second amended counterclaim submitted on behalf of the Bali Hai during a Jan. 5 hearing held by teleconference. The case before Sniffen concerns the operation of the bar/lounge and right of the bar/lounge to serve alcohol at the Bali Hai resort property.

Attorneys for the city argued that the second amended counterclaim failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted and that the promissory estoppel claim listed in the second amended counterclaim should be dismissed with prejudice, arguing that city leaders never gave the Bali Hai’s representatives a promise that alcohol could be served indefinitely at the property.

With Sniffen’s denial of the city’s motion, the case will move forward in Manatee County Circuit Court.

Related coverage

 

Special magistrate reconsiders fines

 

Coconuts owner faces off with city code officers

 

Legal issues put a damper on wedding plans

Bert Harris cases come to a close in Holmes Beach

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

HOLMES BEACH – After more than five years of legal battles, all the Bert Harris Act cases lodged against the city are officially settled, but some neighbors think officials were too generous to developers.

The Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act allows for compensation when a new law unfairly affects real property rights.

When city leaders enacted restrictions on occupancy and the number of bedrooms in short-term rental units nearly six years ago, they wound up with more than 60 Bert Harris complaints coming into city hall with many of those going before judges in Manatee County Circuit Court. Despite winning cases concerning occupancy, there were several still active with appeals to both the circuit and higher courts in Florida, along with a few concerning the maximum allowed number of bedrooms.

In Holmes Beach, the maximum occupancy for short-term rentals is two people per bedroom or six total, whichever is greater. New development of rental properties is also limited to a total of four bedrooms for a single-family property or two bedrooms per side of a duplex.

Bert Harris cases come to a close in Holmes Beach
The vacant lot outlined in blue could house a single-family home with up to seven bedrooms as a part of the city’s Bert Harris Act case settlements. – Manatee County Property Appraiser | Submitted

After holding a shade meeting with attorneys earlier in the month, commissioners met on Oct. 26 to publicly acknowledge the proposed legal settlements and vote to accept four of the five agreements.

The fifth settlement, Mayor Judy Titsworth said, is to be signed by representatives from the Florida League of Cities and states that the league, which has been covering court costs for the city, will not attempt to recoup legal fees from plaintiffs in 24 occupancy cases that the city won.

The other settlements concerning development rights were accepted by commissioners in a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Jayne Christenson and Kim Rash dissenting.

Under the settlement terms, the vacant lot at 303 56th St. will be able to be developed into a single-family home with a maximum of seven bedrooms instead of the four currently allowed per city regulations. The structure would be considered a non-conforming structure under city codes and would be required to meet all other city and state building codes, including setbacks, lot coverage and maximum building height, among others. Should the property owner, local builder Shawn Kaleta, opt to sell the property instead of develop it, the enhanced development rights would not be transferred to the new owner.

At 108 78th St., a single-family property also owned by Kaleta, the settlement allows for a single-family home to be built on the property with a maximum of eight bedrooms. The development rights outlined in the settlement also do not transfer to a new owner should the property be sold before it’s expanded. Similarly, the settlement for 102 77th St. allows Kaleta to construct a single-family home on the property with a maximum of seven bedrooms with the same limitations as the other two settlements.

The settlement between the city and Bryan Zinober, the owner of 105 39th St., allows for the development of two duplexes with a maximum of five bedrooms per side for a total of 20 bedrooms on the property. The non-transferable development rights have an expiration of 25 years from the date of the agreement.

Neighbors object

While no one from the public stepped up to speak against most of the settlements, the one concerning development rights of the 56th Street property didn’t go over well with neighbors.

One neighbor, Gary Brill, said that he and his wife purchased their property at 306 56th St. after looking at what the city’s codes would allow to be built on nearby vacant lots. He asked commissioners to deny the settlement with Kaleta and keep to the four-bedroom maximum.

Next door neighbor Margie Motzer also spoke during public comment, noting that with the increased number of bedrooms allowed on the vacant lot next door to her and her husband’s property, if it were to become a vacation rental, their home would be surrounded by rentals with a total of 23 bedrooms and a maximum occupancy of 46 people. Motzer said she feels that allowing the development of a seven-bedroom structure on the property is not in the best interests of residents or in keeping with the city’s comprehensive plan. She added that she wished city leaders had done some outreach to the neighboring residents to inform them of what kind of development could be coming into their neighborhood as a result of the settlement.

“I think they deserve that respect if nothing else,” she said.

Neighborhood resident Nancy Deal also came to the podium to state that she can hear the noise from adjacent rental properties from up to four houses away on some days. She agreed with Motzer that the public should have been notified and involved in the decision-making process with city leaders.

“This is not right,” Deal said of the settlement, noting that she’s not in favor of granting additional development rights to property owners who know what they can and cannot build on their property when they purchase it. “You work for us,” she said to commissioners. “You work for me. This is wrong.”

Titsworth said that while she feels for the Motzers and their neighbors, that the good of one property owner cannot outweigh the good of the entire city.

Attorney Erica Augello said that if commissioners did not agree to the settlements, it exposed the city to about $7 million in claims if the cases were not decided in the city’s favor plus the added expense of attorney fees if and when the funding from the Florida League of Cities ran out. City leaders have budgeted for only $750,000 to go toward Bert Harris case attorney fees, court costs and potential settlements, if needed.

Commissioner Terry Schaefer said that if he lived where the Motzers do, he would feel the same way about the potential of a seven-bedroom rental property going in next door. However, he added that he believes most Holmes Beach residents would be in favor of the settlement agreements and so he had to vote for them.

“This was a difficult decision,” Commissioner Jim Kihm said. “No one liked the solution being presented but the other option was less palatable.”

Schaefer said that if commissioners decided not to settle the cases, he was afraid of the money it could cost the city down the road, a burden that would likely be put on taxpayers.

Christenson and Rash both said they would like to get community involvement in the decision or at least notify all of the neighboring property owners before voting on whether or not to accept the settlement agreements. Augello said the city is under no obligation to notify adjacent property owners and residents and pushed for commissioners to move forward with the settlements to avoid any additional attorney fees or the possibility of the settlement agreements falling apart.

Related coverage

 

Holmes Beach takes home six Bert Harris wins

 

Bert Harris cases go back to court

Bali Hai site plan review hits a snag

Bali Hai site plan review hits a snag

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

HOLMES BEACH – City commissioners are willing to go to the table with the owner of the Bali Hai Beach Resort, but they still have questions about the submitted site plan currently under review.

Issues between the resort’s owner, local developer Shawn Kaleta, and the city arose in 2020 when code compliance officers and the building official discovered unpermitted work being done on the property along with a bar and lounge being operated without a site plan approval from the city. Despite a stop-work order, a pending case in Manatee County Circuit Court and an ongoing code compliance case before the special magistrate, photos presented to city commissioners during a Jan. 26 work session show that construction work continued at the property along with the continued operation of the bar and lounge area.

Assistant City Planner Austen Dole presented the proposed site plan amendment given to the planning and building departments by Bali Hai representatives, noting that in addition to the other unpermitted areas, two small spa service rooms had been constructed in the laundry building, also without permits from the city.

While the site plan is being considered by city leaders, Dole said staff recommends that all operations on the property cease until the proper permits can be approved. Despite the argument submitted by the resort’s representatives, City Planner Bill Brisson said that in records dating as far back as 1998 he couldn’t find any prior use of a bar or lounge existing on the property.

Attorney Erica Augello said that part of the issue is that the bar and lounge area is still operating despite the ongoing litigation and code violations. Mayor Judy Titsworth said she wanted commissioners to go ahead and start the site plan review process to hopefully bring a quick conclusion to the issues between the city and resort owner. To that end, she encouraged commissioners to carefully consider the site plan presented, what questions they have for the resort’s representatives and what conditions they would like to apply to the site plan approval, such as not allowing wedding festivities, including receptions, to take place at the Bali Hai due to its location amidst residential properties along Gulf Drive.

“We do want him to be successful,” Titsworth said of Kaleta and his venture with the Bali Hai, “but we do want him to play by the same rules everyone else plays by.” She noted that the property has repeatedly been in violation of city codes since Kaleta took over as owner.

City Attorney Patricia Petruff recommended commissioners submit their stipulations for site plan approval to city staff to be written up in some form for discussion at a future work session. Commissioners agreed to readdress the issue at their Feb. 23 work session. No representatives from the Bali Hai were present during the Jan. 26 work session meeting.

Related coverage

 

Rental property owners could be fined in October

 

City leaders, resort owner face off in court

 

Special magistrate rules on seven code issues

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

Holmes Beach logo OLD

Special magistrate rules on seven code issues

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

HOLMES BEACH – Attorney Michael Connelly had his hands full on Aug. 19 when he reprised his role as the city’s special magistrate, hearing seven code compliance hearings in one day.

The first case involved cabanas, wood decking and electrical work at the recently renovated Anna Maria Beach Resort, 6306 Gulf Drive, formerly known as the Blue Water Resort. Code Compliance Supervisor James Thomas presented evidence, along with Building Official Neal Schwartz, that there were no permits filed or issued for the poolside cabanas, the electrical work or the wood decking by the pool. Speaking on behalf of the owner, attorney Aaron Thomas said that his client was attempting to work with the city to correct the issues. Connelly ruled that there was a violation on the wood decking and electrical work and gave the owners 21 business days to provide requested supplementary data. The city has 10 days after that to review the data and determine the next steps, if permits can be issued or if a full site plan review needs to take place. Joseph Varner, of Anna Maria Vacations in Holmes Beach, is listed as the Blue Water Resort AMI LLC’s manager by the Florida Division of Corporations.

The second case involved a home owned by 305 73rd LLC at 305 73rd St. that had been tagged as a dilapidated and unsafe structure. Developer Shawn Kaleta is listed as manager. Thomas said the first notice of violation was posted at the home, which was then open to the elements in a state of construction with an overgrown yard and building materials scattered across the property.

Thomas said it took until Aug. 3 for the structure to be boarded up against intrusion and it was the city that hired the contractor to complete the work. Schwartz said that before the property was seemingly abandoned, there was an active permit to replace the roof, but that construction had clearly gone beyond the scope of work with the entire building gutted. He issued a stop-work order on the property and has been working with the contractor on the project, whom Schwartz said has neglected to turn in proper paperwork to have the stop-work order removed.

Special magistrate rules on seven code issues
Attorney Michael Connelly serves as the Holmes Beach special magistrate during a series of code compliance hearings Aug. 19. – Submitted | Sun

Connelly ruled that the property owner has 30 days from the date of the hearing to obtain a permit and begin either rehabilitation or demolition of the structure. He also ordered a fine of $250 per day beginning on Aug. 19 and that the owner pay $127.24 in administrative costs.

Two cases were heard in one hearing, both of them involving the Bali Hai Beach Resort, 6900 Gulf Drive. The first case involved work being done on a small building on the property without a permit and the second for alcohol sales on the premises without an approved site plan. Connelly ruled that there was a change in use on the property without an approved site plan and that work was done without a permit and construction work was done with an outstanding stop-work order issued.

Connelly gave Shawn Kaleta, listed as manager of Bali Hai JV LLC, 30 days to obtain permits and start construction on the property and 30 days to obtain the necessary site plan approvals. He ordered Kaleta to pay $127.24 in administrative fees for both cases and said he would schedule a hearing to impose fines once the structure is brought into compliance.

Kaleta came under fire again in the final three hearings, which were combined into a single hearing. The property in question this time was The Anna Maria Island Inn, previously known as the Pirate’s Den, at 3501 Gulf Drive. The code issues Thomas said he found with the business include renting vacation rental units without vacation rental certificates (VRC), work done without permits and a zoning violation for renting units daily in an R-4 zone, where rentals must be seven days or more.

Part of the case presented by the city involved two bottom floor units that Schwartz said were constructed in a previous storage area without permits and below allowable elevation for the area under the Florida Building Code for the time when the building was first erected.

The attorney for the owner, Louis Najmy, argued that the property was purchased during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the two bottom floor units were already in place and that the property has a history of renting units for a single night. He added that the rentals are taking place with VRCs in place, but that the VRCs aren’t in the current owner’s name. He said that the bottom two units have ceased to be rented until an agreement could be reached with the city but that the remaining units have guests and future reservations.

Connelly ruled that there were multiple violations on the property and ordered that the signage and advertising be changed to remove the daily rental option. He also gave 30 days for the owner to obtain permits, complete work for A/C units that were installed incorrectly, and remediate the bottom units, returning the area to storage space. He ordered the owner to pay $127.24 per case but no fines unless the property isn’t brought into compliance within the specified amount of time. He also ordered that the remaining units cannot be rented until new VRCs can be obtained in the current owner’s name. The VRCs cannot be issued by the city until the property is brought into compliance and the stop-work order issued for the A/C units and plumbing work done without a permit is removed through proper permitting.

Related coverage

 

County judge leaves Holmes Beach case

 

Special magistrate hears code cases

 

Lawsuit filed against fire department

Lawsuit filed against fire department

Lawsuit filed against fire department

Written by SUN contributor on . Posted in Anna Maria Island, Community News, Holmes Beach, West Manatee Fire Rescue.

BRADENTON – West Manatee Fire Rescue commissioners had a couple of legal decisions to make when the board met Nov. 19, first to select new legal counsel and second, to decide how to move forward with a pending lawsuit.

In a unanimous vote, commissioners appointed attorney Maggie Mooney as the district’s legal counsel, replacing the retiring Jim Dye. Mooney also represents four other Manatee County fire districts.

In her first act as the attorney for WMFR, Mooney informed commissioners that a lawsuit had been filed against them in Manatee County Circuit Court and an administrative appeal in the same case also had been set for a hearing on Nov. 25 with the Manatee County Fire Code Appeals Board.

The appeals board is a seven-member volunteer board made up of local professionals. This will be the first appeals case that has gone before the board.

Mooney said that local builder and real estate investor Shawn Kaleta had filed both the lawsuit and the administrative appeal on Nov. 18, appealing a decision made by Fire Marshal Rodney Kwiatkowski to require a sprinkler system installed at the Bali Hai Beach Resort. The resort is owned and being remodeled by Kaleta. Mooney said that the administrative appeal should technically have been ruled on before a lawsuit was filed but that in this case, both had been done at the same time. Until the administrative hearing is held, she said the lawsuit cannot be heard in court.

The appeals hearing was held at Cedar Hammock Fire Rescue District’s administration building Nov. 25 after press time for The Sun.

On behalf of Kaleta’s Bali Hai JV LLC, attorney Jason Miller filed an emergency motion for permanent injunction, arguing that Kwiatkowski’s interpretation of the Florida Fire Code, requiring sprinkler system was delaying the completion of the remodel of the property at 6900 Gulf Drive in Holmes Beach. In the motion, he alleges that as a result of the requirement for fire sprinklers that Kaleta will suffer irreparable financial harm that would likely be unrecoverable.

In the lawsuit, Miller asks for declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctions due to the alleged halting of construction and stopping of the permitting process related to the requirement for fire sprinklers.

The Life Safety Code, a provision of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, says that only one and two-family dwelling structures are exempt from a requirement for sprinkler systems. The Bali Hai has 48 suite and hotel room units.

The lawsuit claims that the resort can be booked for $795 per night during season and that Kaleta could suffer monetary damages in excess of $15,000 not including attorney costs.

Mooney said that if WMFR were to win the administrative appeal and have Kwiatkowski’s ruling upheld, it doesn’t mean that the lawsuit won’t go forward. She recommended commissioners authorize Chief Ben Rigney to enter into a contract for specialist litigation attorneys to fight the case. On Nov. 20, attorneys Martin Garcia and Josh Dell of The Law Firm of Matthews Eastmoore out of Sarasota were entered into the court record as attorneys for WMFR. The case has been assigned to Judge Charles Sniffen.

Related coverage

WMFR welcomes Rigney, says goodbye to Sousa

WMFR approves budget, assessment rate

WMFR celebrates life with Phoenix Awards

Holmes Beach 47th lot clear

Retribution sought for sea grape destruction

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

HOLMES BEACH – City commissioners are asking police officers and City Attorney Patricia Petruff to work together to find a way to prosecute local builder Shawn Kaleta for the destruction of sea grapes and other vegetation on city property.

The destruction of the sea grapes and sea oats was observed over the summer with Building Official Jim McGuinness putting a stop work order on the 102 47th Street property and adjacent lot until Kaleta came into compliance and received permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Kaleta owns two parcels of land at the western end of 47th Street from which he cleared of all vegetation up to the dune line and public beach access on the southern side of the property. He also cleared the vegetation from the city unimproved right of way that would extend Fourth Avenue from 48th to 47th Street that divides his two properties without permission from the city.

The incident is similar to a situation Kaleta found himself in over the summer of 2017 when he removed sea grapes and sea oats from another property he was developing at 102 77th Street. The property remained under a stop work order for more than a month while the builder struggled to receive after the fact permits from the DEP, make an agreement to replace the removed sea grapes and sea oats with the DEP and come into compliance with the city’s building department. Though the sea grapes and sea oats were replanted at the location, it will take years for the plants to return to their previous size.

“This is minimal,” Commissioner Carol Soustek said of the replanting, a plan that will repeat itself at 47th Street. “What they destroyed at 77th Street was natural. What’s there now looks like a model house.”

Commissioner Judy Titsworth agreed, pushing for consideration of some sort of prosecution for the destruction at 47th Street and Fourth Avenue.

“Sea grapes need to be wild, not trimmed and pruned,” she said. “Fourth Avenue looks like a war zone.”

She added that as a licensed contractor, Kaleta should know the local laws and regulations about the removal of sea grapes. At the site of the sea grape removal on 47th Street, there is a sign at the beach access advising of the find for damaging sea grapes.

“We can’t continue to just allow it to happen,” Titsworth said, fearing that the situation would continue to be repeated if no further action is taken by city leaders.

City attorney Patricia Petruff said she would have to investigate to see what action can be taken at this point. She suggested that commissioners also consider potential uses for the Fourth Avenue right of way now that it has been cleared. Prior to Kaleta clearing the property, Petruff said the right of way was impassible due to vegetation.

The stop work order has been lifted on the property and McGuinness said Kaleta has reached an agreement with the DEP to replant the sea grapes on the right of way, the sea oats on the western edge of the property and create a buffer between the dune line and the planned residential development.

“What he’s offering isn’t even a token,” Commissioner Pat Morton said of the plan to replant some of the destroyed vegetation. Morton added that as a “habitual offender of city code” Kaleta should be “put in his place.”

Though several options for prosecution were suggested by commissioners, Petruff said it would take time to determine legally what the city’s prosecution options are and how strong of a case could be brought against Kaleta for the damage. She agreed to work with Mayor Bob Johnson and HBPD officers to determine what the best course of action will be. In the meantime, commissioners reached a consensus to write a letter reporting the incident to the state licensing board so that the issue is on record when Kaleta’s construction license comes up for renewal.

Related coverage

Building official maintains position on dune destruction

Dune destruction sparks concerns

Kaleta noise lawsuit

Property owners file lawsuit, injunction against neighbors

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

HOLMES BEACH – Neighbors of vacation rental homes in this Island city are seeing one of their worst fears coming to pass.

Owners of two vacation rental properties have filed a lawsuit and injunction against their neighbors over noise complaints those neighbors have made.

When the city adopted a noise ordinance to help combat issues arising from neighboring noise interrupting the “peaceful enjoyment” of property, some property owners feared that calling in complaints to police could result in retaliation.

That retaliation occurred on April 6 when vacation rental owners Shawn and Jennifer Kaleta filed a lawsuit and injunction against neighboring property owners Richard and Marjorie Motzer.

The lawsuit alleges stalking and tortious interference based on a log of calls concerning noise complaints.

In the lawsuit, the Kaletas’ attorney, Aaron Thomas, alleges that the Motzers made 42 “unfounded” noise complaints to the HBPD concerning the Kaletas’ vacation rental property at 302 55th St. from April to December 2017. As a result of the calls, one guest of the property was given a citation from the police. While most of the calls were made anonymously to the police, the lawsuit contends that all of the calls were made by the Motzers. The suit also claims the Motzers are “aggressive” toward the Kaletas and guests at the property.

Kaleta noise lawsuit
A vacation rental home at 302 55th Street, owned by the Kaletas, backs into the property of full-time residents Richard and Marjorie Motzer. – Kristin Swain | Sun

The lawsuit states that due to an increased police presence at the property prompted by noise complaints, the Motzers are stalking guests by harassment. The suit requests a temporary injunction to prevent the Motzers from calling in noise complaints or approaching guests at the neighboring property.

A count for tortious interference also is included in the lawsuit, alleging the Motzers knowingly sought to damage the Kaletas’ business endeavors at the property by making “unfounded noise complaints with the Holmes Beach Police Department knowing that the police department would send an officer to the property to make contact with the property owners or guests currently staying at the property to inform them of the city’s code/ordinances and provide guests with a brochure detailing the city’s code/ordinances, regardless of whether a noise violation was found to exist.”

In this matter, the Kaletas are seeking an award of damages along with repayment of court costs and attorney’s fees.

In the petition for a temporary injunction against stalking and tortious interference, Thomas claims the Motzers have given the same treatment to another neighboring vacation rental property owned by the Kaletas, 5501 Holmes Blvd., calling in 24 noise complaints with no violations issued by HBPD officers. Again, the calls were primarily made anonymously, however, the injunction asserts that it was the Motzers who made calls to the HBPD to intentionally harass guests at the property and interfere in the Kaletas’ business relations.

Kaleta noise lawsuit
Full-time residents Richard and Marjorie Motzer’s home backs into two large vacation rental properties owned by Shawn and Jennifer Kaleta. – Kristin Swain | Sun

“At this time I don’t want to say anything because we’re looking at litigation,” Richard Motzer said when asked for comment.

HBPD Chief Bill Tokajer said his officers would continue to respond to any complaints at the properties.

“We will always respond to calls for service,” he said. “That’s our job and we’ll continue to do so.”

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.