BRADENTON BEACH – A 6.5-hour city commission public hearing on Nov. 16 for a proposed hotel/restaurant/retail project on Bridge Street and Gulf Drive led to warnings that something more impactful could be built if it is not approved.
Commissioner Ralph Cole suggested a reduction in the proposed 106 hotel rooms to alleviate parking issues. The applicants’ representatives pushed back.
The applicants’ Bradenton attorney, Stephen Thompson, said his clients are close to their breaking point on numbers, and architect Shaun Luttrell indicated the alternative to the hotel project for the applicants could be a mixed-use building on Bridge Street and multi-unit rental properties along Third Street South.
The application for the hotel, a 60-seat restaurant, 2,485 square feet of retail and 99 on-site parking spaces was made by property owners Shawn Kaleta, a local developer, and Jacob Spooner, a Bradenton Beach commissioner.
The applicants are proposing a 106-room hotel along Bridge Street. – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
Three of the five commission members, Mayor John Chappie and Commissioners Jan Vosburgh and Cole, were present at the Nov. 16 hearing. Spooner recused himself from the meeting. Commissioner Marilyn Maro has been absent with excuse since January but was present by telephone for part of the hearing.
Cole expressed concerns about parking for the hotel.
Commissioner Jan Vosburgh, Mayor John Chappie and Commissioner Ralph Cole hear testimony at the Nov. 16 public hearing on the proposed hotel. – Leslie Lake | Sun
City Attorney Ricinda Perry responded by saying the applicants have the option to develop the property as is if the project is not approved.
“Am I correct that you produced images today showing you would build a ton of differently-owned rental properties on Third Street South and then a mixed-use development on Bridge Street?” Perry asked Luttrell.
“That’s correct,” Luttrell said.
Luttrell said each of those rental properties would have six units per house with parking spots underneath them.
“Can you testify or Mr. Thompson testify as to what this commission has to consider? There are essentially three things asked for in this development that do not adhere to the current strict zoning that you could build those, I’ll use your term, ‘party house row,’ ” Perry said. “They’re asking for a reduction in parking, they’re asking for a reduction in one of the setbacks and asking for 106 hotel units.”
“If the commission does not agree to give something under the planned development that looks like what has been asked for is there a point which the applicant does not find this financially feasible and would just go to the straight rezone, I mean to the straight current zoning and build what they’re entitled to?” Perry asked Luttrell.
“I’m sure there is a point within those numbers where they would stop the project and pursue a different avenue,” Luttrell said, adding that he didn’t know what that number is.
Luttrell asked if there were issues besides parking that needed to be addressed.
Chappie said he didn’t like the design of the hotel.
“Personally, I don’t like the look of it,” Chappie said. “I like the hotel idea in commercial, I like that idea a lot, similar to what’s across the street.”
“We’ll take everything into consideration and see if we can massage this plan a little bit to get closer to what you’re looking for,” Luttrell said.
Thompson said the applicants had made a number of concessions up to that point.
“We didn’t start at this number,” Thompson said. “We were a lot higher than this number. We’re almost at the breaking point, I’m being honest with you. One of our clients is more than happy to do the vacation rentals.”
“We want to continue with this, but then the issue is, ok, what is the number?” Thompson said, adding that his team will come back with a proposal in advance of the next meeting.
“I’m hopeful we can come to the right number,” Chappie said. “I do have the same fear of party houses.”
Commission vote
“You’ve been given over six hours of information and handouts,” Perry said. “It’s fair to say you need some time to think about things and there’s nothing to say when we come back on Dec. 7 that you can’t get into a substantive discussion.”
“We’re just not there yet,” Chappie said. “I think we can work something out here, I really do, the alternative – I don’t like at all.”
Chappie questioned the effect that the approval of the first reading of the ordinance would have on the ongoing discussion.
Building Official Steve Gilbert clarified.
“You have a first reading that’s been advertised,” he said. “That reading does not set a development order in place nor does it fully authorize a PD back later. I think you can clear your first reading of the proposed ordinance tonight, continue the hearing – I’m not calling it a public hearing, but it’s still an open hearing because we’ve taken public comment already – until the Dec. 7 meeting at which time then you would conclude the hearing and contemplate the second reading of the ordinance.”
“The ordinance just says it allows for a plan, and what we’re currently in the process of doing is determining what that plan is,” Perry said. “Before the second reading and adoption of this ordinance, there must be a plan figured out.”
“If you cannot come to an agreement and if you cannot establish a plan at the December meeting, everything goes away and we start over,” Gilbert said.
“This just keeps us talking, all at the table to see where we end up,” Chappie said.
Vosburgh made the motion to approve the first reading, and to set the second hearing, seconded by Cole. The motion passed unanimously 3-0. Maro was no longer on the call for the vote.
Based on the city charter, which calls for an affirmative supra majority vote by four of the five commissioners, the question remains as to whether the standing commission has the ability to approve the project.
Public comment
During the public comment portion of the Nov. 16 hearing, Seminole-based attorney David Blum, representing six project opponents, said, “As far as the conditions on this plan, if you all adopt the conditions along with the plan and don’t deny, you all are setting yourselves up for a lot of litigation, not from me, but you’re setting yourself up. There’s a part about special events applications that allows you to serve alcohol, which turns it into a commercial space. It gives you the ability to do away with the noise ordinance. So rock on.”
Prior to participating in public comment, speakers are sworn in at the Nov. 16 public hearing on the proposed hotel. – Leslie Lake | Sun
In a departure from the two Planning and Zoning hearings, in which a majority of speakers were in opposition to the project, nearly half the 20 speakers at the Nov. 16 commission hearing spoke in favor of the hotel. At least five of those were employees of businesses in which Kaleta has ownership interests – specifically Prime Vacations and Salt Bar & Table Restaurant.
The Thursday, Dec. 7 hearing will be held at 6 p.m. at the Katie Pierola Commission Chambers, 107 Gulf Drive N.
BRADENTON BEACH – In the second Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on a proposed 106-room hotel project, the board today unanimously recommended that Bradenton Beach commissioners approve the project with conditions.
The property on Bridge Street and Gulf Drive South, owned by Shawn Kaleta, a local developer, and Jacob Spooner, a Bradenton Beach city commissioner, would also feature a 60-seat restaurant, 2,485 square feet of retail space and 99 parking spaces.
Monday’s six-hour hearing was a continuation of a Nov. 1 meeting where P&Z members raised questions about parking, potential water shortages and traffic impacts. Twelve people voiced their opposition, with 13 additional emails received in opposition to the project. One Bradenton Beach homeowner indicated that he is prepared to file a lawsuit if the project is approved.
The Bradenton Beach Commission will discuss the project on Thursday, Nov. 16 at noon.
BRADENTON BEACH – A long-awaited public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board on a proposed 106-room hotel at the intersection of Bridge Street and Gulf Drive South brought an overflow crowd to city hall, many of whom were opposed to the hotel project.
At the Nov. 1 meeting, WMFR Fire Marshal Rodney Kwiatkowski ensured the room’s 51-person capacity was adhered to. Audio of the meeting was streamed outside for those who were not allowed to enter due to over-capacity.
Some public hearing attendees stood outside city hall and listened to the hearing through an outdoor speaker because the commission chambers were full. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The Land Development Code application for the yet-unnamed Bridge Street hotel project includes the hotel, a 60-seat restaurant, 2,485 square feet of retail and 99 on-site parking spaces. Property owners Shawn Kaleta, a local developer, and Jacob Spooner, business owner and Bradenton Beach city commissioner, made the application on Dec. 2, 2022.
This architectural drawing included in the planning board meeting packet refers to the proposed resort hotel as ‘The Bridge Hotel.’ – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
The 4.5-hour meeting consisted of city staff recommendations, public comments and a presentation by applicant’s representatives.
No resolution was reached, leading to a continuation of the discussion scheduled on Monday, Nov. 13 at 10 a.m.
“We are meeting today for a public hearing to consider a major development consisting of a resort hotel, retail space, and parking, along with an ordinance by the City of Bradenton Beach amending the zoning atlas of the city of Bradenton Beach, for 1.61 acres, more or less, of real property located at 101, 105 and 117 Bridge Street, and 106, 108, 110 and 112 Third Street South, establishing a Planned Development Overlay District within the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts, providing for findings and providing for an effective date,” P&Z Chair Bill Morrow said at the start of the Nov. 1 meeting.
Planning and Zoning Board members Fred Bartizal, John Burns, Bill Morrow and Dan Morhaus reviewed the proposed hotel plans. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Planning and Zoning Board members were asked to confirm that they had no ex-parte communications concerning the project and that they had no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, in the hotel project. Board members Morrow, Fred Bartizal, John Burns and Dan Morhaus replied that they did not. Ken McDonough was absent with excuse from the meeting.
“There are two matters to be voted on,” attorney Robert Lincoln said, representing the Planning and Zoning Board in the quasi-judicial hearing. “One will be the question of the proposed major development, the site plan, and it has to meet the enumerated criteria, I think it’s section 407 or 410 of the code. The other question before you today is whether or not to approve the planned development overlay rezoning. That involves a separate vote and motions, and a separate, different criteria. You have to apply the competent substantial evidence you hear today to the extent you hear it, to the various criteria.”
“The interpretation of the code, the legal questions, are generally up to you,” Lincoln said to P&Z members. “In interpreting the code, you can take the advice of your city planners.”
The vacant former Freckled Fin property and the vacant former Joe’s Eats & Sweets property are part of the applicants’ planned development overlay district rezoning request. – Joe Hendricks | SunShawn Kaleta’s Bridge Street Resort LLC owns the Island Time Inn on Bridge Street that would be demolished to make room for the new hotel. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The Planning and Zoning Board is a recommending body that will either recommend city commission approval or denial of the proposed hotel project. The city commission has its own public hearings scheduled on Thursday, Nov. 16 at noon and on Thursday, Dec. 7 at 6 p.m.
City planner recommends approval, with conditions
City planner Luis Serna AICP presented the staff report.
“I will just summarize the important parts (of my report),” Serna said. “To summarize the project, the parcels total approximately 1.6 acres. They’re located in a mixed-use Bridge Street Commercial Land Use category and the Bridge Street Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) district. The parcels currently contain commercial uses, including a hotel, two restaurants, previously developed vacant land and attached single-family dwellings… The applicants are proposing to develop this under the PD (planned development) regulations which are intended to provide flexible zoning overlays with the submission of a custom plan of development for the site.”
Bradenton Beach Building Official Steve Gilbert, left, and City Planner Luis Serna, right, recommend approval of the proposed hotel project. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Serna read from his Oct. 25, 2023, memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Board in which he cited the applicable land development code requirements: Sect. 211.4, Criteria for Zoning Map Amendments; Section 307.13, PD Overlay District and Section 410.7, Review of Major Development Plans.
In reading a section that provides for the review criteria for major developments, Serna said, “The project currently proposed 17 parking spaces that partially encroach into the right of way of Third Street South. This parking encroachment is similar to existing parking encroachments that occur along Bridge Street. This issue may be addressed as a component of the proposed PD review.
“The use will not cause substantial injury to the character of the area, and the value of the other property in the neighborhood, if subject to the conditions recommended below,” he said.
The proposed resort hotel plans include a rooftop deck and swimming pool. – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
Those conditions are that the hotel will be furnished with blackout curtains and education about the protection of sea turtles and prevention of ambient lighting from rooms facing the beach, and the applicants will provide an easement for access to the trash receptacles at Daiquiri Deck at 107 Bridge St.
“There is some encroachment into parking spaces on the right of way,” Serna said. “That could be handled as a part of the planned development process.”
Following Serna’s presentation, P&Z members drilled down on parking, potential overload of water volume and usage, traffic impacts and turtle lighting.
“There were two or three different times you said you were in agreement but requested additional information on some critical items to make a decision,” Morhaus said to Serna. “How can we evaluate this without the responses?”
Planning and Zoning Board member Dan Morhaus is concerned about the applicants’ request to reduce the project’s total parking requirements. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“That’s regarding concurrency management,” Serna said. “We have not received any information on that. Perhaps the applicant can address that.”
Serna said the applicants did provide reports on water and sewer usage as well as traffic impacts, and he is requesting additional information about adequate fire flow.
“If you had 106 rooms with toilets, will our sewage system be able to handle that?” Morhaus asked.
“We would have to have evidence from county utility companies,” Serna said.
Morrow expressed concern about the hotel lighting and its impact on sea turtles.
“The plans that were submitted were sea-turtle friendly fixtures with amber bulbs,” Building Official Steve Gilbert said.
“How many parking spaces are required for a 106-room hotel?” Burns asked Serna. “According to the attorney (Lincoln), we’re looking at a major development. We can’t look at PD until we’re done with deciding which way we’re going with the major development and then they’re asking for a rezone to the PD.”
“While you look at major development plan, you’re looking at what’s proposed,” Lincoln said. “They’re allowed to ask for relief.”
Lincoln referred to the process as a “chicken and egg thing.”
“They go together,” he said. “Rezoning is contingent on the site plan. The site plan is the basis for asking for relief on the PD.”
“We can’t see the degree of relief that is being asked for,” Burns said. “If we’re going to let them ask for it, we may as well know how much. We have a hotel of 106 rooms, how many spaces are required?”
“One space per unit and an additional 10%,” Gilbert said. “That’s 117 spaces and 15 for the restaurant.”
Serna said 133 total spaces are required, and the applicants are proposing 99 spaces.
Planning and Zoning Board member John Burns wants to know exactly how many hotel parking spaces the applicants propose and how many parking spaces the city’s land development code could require. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Burns asked if that includes staff.
“Right now, we’re looking at 117 for the hotel for patrons and staff,” Burns said. “Now we’re at 132? The restaurant is going to require staff.”
Serna said general standards for restaurants apply to patrons and staff.
“We would need to ask the applicant what the intended operation was to get a number,” Burns said. “We have no indication of how many retail units there are.”
“One space per 250 square foot gross floor area for retail,” Gilbert said.
“So, 2,450, we’re looking at 10 parking spaces?” Burns said.
“There’s 17 (spaces) on Third Street South,” Gilbert said. “There’s a number of existing spaces at the Daiquiri Deck that are shared. That is nine additional spaces and one or two handicapped spaces.”
It was noted that approximately two-thirds of each of those proposed 17 street-side parking spaces would be located on city-owned right of way.
The 17 proposed hotel parking spaces along Third Street South, shown at the bottom of this illustration, would be partially located on the city-owned right of way. – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
“This would be the utilization of city right of way,” Burns said. “This being the shared land use on both Third and Second (Bridge Street) where the property owners own a piece and the city owns a larger piece.”
“Those parking spaces, about two-thirds of each of those are owned by the city,” Burns said. “If those are removed, then we have a further reduction. The other issue is those parking spaces on Third have their access restricted to go through the hotel multi-use property. This is under the strict control of the facility, meaning the public has no access to public lands provided by the city. This is why I’m asking on the parking requirement.”
The parking report provided by the applicants is too vague for actual use, Burns said.
“When you add all these up, it comes up as more than 133. So, the applicant is asking for a reduction in parking? That issue concerns me,” Burns said.
“They’re talking about using shuttle services as a reason for reduction in parking,” he added. “We have taxpayer-supported parking spaces and we have taxpayer-supported conveyances that would be used for private enterprises.”
Morhaus suggested reducing the number of hotel rooms to meet the city’s parking requirements.
Public Comment
Seminole, Florida-based attorney David Blum and land planner Misty Servia were retained by Bradenton Beach property owners Bob Bolus and Christine Johnson, and hotel opponent Hunter Jensen. Servia said they also were representing the neighborhood surrounding the hotel. In a departure from the three-minute time limit to speak for individuals and five minutes for those representing others, Blum and Servia requested 30 minutes to address the board. They were granted 15 minutes.
During the hearing, attorney David Blum, left, represented Bradenton Beach condo owner and part-time resident Bob Bolus, right, and a group of citizens who oppose the proposed hotel. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The applicant in this situation is seeking rezoning of a PD district, but the staff has not advertised or analyzed rezoning, which is a quasi-judicial matter,” Blum said. “The staff report indicates the applicant is adding the PD overlay administratively, which goes against statute.”
Blum asked for public records, which he was told were voluminous and would be provided after the meeting, based on what he said were comments by Bradenton Beach City Attorney Ricinda Perry.
“The comment is improper for a city attorney in a quasi-judicial hearing,” Blum said. “We shouldn’t have these conversations outside this hearing.”
Blum presented a copy of a Facebook conversation in which Perry apparently “liked” a comment supporting the hotel project.
Attorney David Blum presented a copy of a Bridge Street hotel-related Facebook comment that City Attorney Ricinda “liked” with a thumbs-up emoji. – Joe Hendricks | SunOn Dec. 22, City Attorney Ricinda Perry posted this Facebook comment at the Island Ratz Unite Facebook page in response to other comments that were critical of the newly-proposed hotel project. – Facebook | Submitted
“There is no mention of rezoning in the notice,” Blum said. “The notice is defective which renders this proceeding subject to challenge.”
Servia, a former Manatee County commissioner and a certified land use planner with 34 years of experience, spoke next.
“I want to make sure Bradenton Beach does the right thing,” she said. “I want to make sure you follow your comprehensive plan and land development code. This redevelopment opportunity is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and I want everyone to come together and get it right.”
Certified land use planner Misty Servia said the city’s comprehensive plan limits hotel/motel/transient units to 18 units per gross acre. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Servia read from the city’s comprehensive plan.
“This policy states that hotel/motel/transient units are limited to 18 units per gross acre,” Servia said. “That’s very important because that’s also transcribed in your zoning and land development code. The comp plan cannot be modified with the PUD zoning, and your comp plan limits the density to 18 hotel units per acre.”
The proposed hotel with 106 rooms on 1.61 acres is clearly inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, she said.
“The number of units should be decreased to 28 hotel rooms,” Servia said. “And the height or usable stories be reduced to three to comply with the comp plan.”
Servia also addressed what she said was a deficiency in parking for the hotel.
“The parking study was provided by the applicants because they can’t meet the minimum standard in your land development code,” she said.
After the meeting, Servia told The Sun that Bolus is prepared to file and fund a lawsuit if the project is approved by the city commission.
Twelve people spoke in opposition to the hotel project, many citing traffic and noise concerns. Two speakers, Jim Hassett and Drift In owner Derek Williams, spoke in favor of the hotel project.
On behalf of himself and other Capri Condo owners, Colorado-based architect Steve Steinbicker expressed the group’s opposition to the proposed hotel. The Bradenton Beach condo that he shares ownership of is advertised as an Airbnb vacation rental and is registered with the city as a vacation rental. – Joe Hendricks | SunLongtime Bradenton Beach resident Jim Hassett spoke in support of the proposed resort hotel. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Additionally, 13 emails opposing the project were read into the record by Deputy City Clerk Christine Watson.
Applicant’s presentation
Stephen Thompson, a land attorney with the Najmy Thompson law firm, represented the project applicants. The presentation also included land planner Susan Swift, traffic engineer Nathan Poole and project manager and architect Shaun Luttrell.
Architect Shaun Luttrell and attorney Stephen Thompson represent property owners and project applicants Shawn Kaleta and Jake Spooner. Kaleta and Spooner did not attend the public hearing. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“This may be the most important decision the city is going to be making about Bridge Street,” Thompson said. “I think the city has been planning for this type of development for many years.”
Planning and Zoning Board member Fred Bartizal posed questions about hotel access for delivery trucks and garbage trucks and the use of city-owned rights of way for hotel-affiliated parking spaces. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, comp plan and land development codes identify Bridge Street as the commercial center, he said.
“We felt the city had laid the groundwork for this type of development, because all your plans really encourage this type of use,” Thompson said. “When you take this proposal and you match it against your CRA plan, this plan meets the goals of your plan.”
The Fudge Factory and Fish Hole miniature golf properties owned by Jake Spooner’s Bridge Street Bazaar Inc. are included in the hotel plans.- Joe Hendricks | Sun
Thompson said this is a superior plan and will set the standard for redevelopment in the Bridge Street area.
“We’re not asking for any special waivers on height,” Luttrell said. “We’re 29 feet above the design flood elevation. I hope I can put that concern to rest.”
In traffic and parking mitigation efforts, he said there will be shuttle service to and from the airport and a charge for onsite hotel parking to encourage the use of shuttle service.
Luttrell showed a slide showing parking spaces on Third Street South.
“I’m having an issue with the parking,” Morhaus said. “They’re asking for a variance and taking away 17 spaces from the city.”
Luttrell said an option would be to integrate parallel parking on Third Street.
“The fundamental issue appears to be parking,” Thompson said, suggesting that a revised parking plan be presented at the next meeting.
Poole said, based on a traffic study, the hotel will generate a car every two minutes.
“We’re not talking about a major traffic generator here,” Poole said.
Certified land use planner Susan Swift said the number of hotel rooms allowed should be based on the commercial development’s floor area ratio and not the 18 units per acre stated in the city’s comp plan. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Swift, an AICE-certified planner, disputed Servia’s claim that 18 units per acre apply to hotels.
“That density is meant for residential,” Swift said. “We don’t use units per acre, we use Floor Area Ratio (FRA) for commercial use.”
Swift also explained that the rooftop pool area is not to be considered a fourth floor.
“The LDC explains that excludes open-to-the-air areas,” she said. “This project does meet the height requirements.”
The experts disagree
“She’s wrong,” Servia said about Swift’s comments following the meeting. “They are grasping at straws. The comp plan states there are 18 units allowed per acre. If it only went by FAR, there would be hotels springing up all over.”
“You can never waive the comp plan,” she said. “It’s the law.”
The Nov. 13 meeting will be open to the public, but, as it is a continuation of the Nov. 1 meeting where public comment was closed, there will be no opportunity for members of the public to speak.
(Sun reporter Joe Hendricks contributed to this story)
BRADENTON BEACH – Pines Trailer Park mobile home residents will experience significant rent increases that will take effect Jan. 1, in some cases more than doubling their lot rent, according to a letter sent by developers.
The waterfront mobile park was recently purchased by Pines Park Investors LLC, which lists developer Shawn Kaleta as the LLC’s manager and attorney Louis Najmy as its registered agent. On Aug. 24, Pines Park Investors entered into an $8.25 million mortgage and security agreement with The Jackson Partnership LLLP as part of the LLC’s $16.25 million park purchase.
Dated Sept. 29 and sent to all homeowners in the park, the notification letter says, “Pursuant to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, this serves as 90-day notice of an increase in the lot rental amount for Pines Trailer Park. This increase in the lot rental amount for base rent will be effective Jan. 1, 2024.”
The monthly rent for waterfront lots in the Pines Trailer Park will increase $850 per month. – Joe Hendricks | SunThe letter includes a price increase chart that shows the base lot rent for a standard lot, with the exception of lots #37 and #65, will increase by $575 per month, rising from $625 to $1,200 per month. The base lot rent for lots #37 and #65 will increase $580 per month, rising from $620 to $1,200 per month. Base lot rent for water-view lots will increase by $725 per month, rising from $625 to $1,350 per month. Base lot rent for waterfront lots will increase by $850 per month, rising from $625 to $1,475 per month.
Many Pines Trailer Park homeowners and residents are retirees who live on fixed incomes. The pending rent increases may make it difficult for some of them to remain in their homes. None approached by The Sun were willing to discuss the issue.
BRADENTON BEACH – Developer Shawn Kaleta’s Pines Park Investors LLC has purchased the Pines Trailer Park in Bradenton Beach.
Formed on May 5, Pines Park Investors LLC lists the Najmy Thompson law firm as its registered agent and Kaleta as its manager.
According to a warranty deed dated Aug. 25, Pines Park Investors LLC completed its long-rumored purchase of the 2.78-acre waterfront mobile park property from The Jackson Partnership LLLP for $16.25 million. The Pines Park property contains 86 or 87 residential units and a shared clubhouse area.
Some of the Pines Trailer Park mobile homes have waterfront views. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to the mortgage and security agreement dated Aug. 25, Pines Park Investors LLC secured an $8.25 million mortgage with The Jackson Partnership LLLP. According to the mortgage terms, all rents, leases, issues, profits, revenue, income, proceeds, and tax liabilities are given to the borrower, Pines Park Investors LLC.
“If the mortgaged property and any part thereof shall be damaged or taken through condemnation, either temporarily or permanently, the entire indebtedness and other sums secured shall, at the option of the lender (Jackson Partnership LLLP), become immediately due and payable,” according to the mortgage agreement.
The mortgage agreement also states, “Borrower shall not remove or demolish any building or other property forming a part of the mortgaged property without the written consent of the lender. Borrower shall not permit, commit or suffer any waste, impairment or deterioration of the mortgaged property, or any part thereof, and shall keep the same and improvements thereon in good condition and repair.”
“We hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. We are writing to you today with some exciting news regarding the future of Pines Park. We are Pines Park Investors LLC – a group of trailer park owners and operators. As you may be aware, we have recently acquired Pines Park and we wanted to take this opportunity to assure you that we are committed to preserving and improving the park in hopes of ensuring long-term success,” The letter says.
“First and foremost, we are thrilled to announce Brien Quinn, our outstanding park manager, will remain on board. Brien has demonstrated exceptional professionalism and dedication and we believe that his continued presence will greatly contribute to the smooth transition and ongoing management of Pines Park. With his expertise, we can ensure that our community remains well-maintained, secure and enjoyable for all residents.
“Please continue to remit rent payments to Brien Quinn, as well as direct any questions you have his way. Going forward, all checks should be made out to Pines Park Investors LLC.
“We want to emphasize that your satisfaction and well-being are our top priorities. We believe that the future of Pines Park is bright, and together we can continue this thriving community that you are proud to be a part of. We are committed to open communication and we encourage you to reach out to Brien with any questions, concerns or suggestions you may have.
“We look forward to embarking on this new chapter with you and witnessing the continued growth and success of the park. Thank you for your support, and we anticipate an exciting future ahead for Pines Park,” the one-page letter says in conclusion.
Future land use
According to the city of Bradenton Beach’s zoning map, the Pines Trailer Park property is currently zoned M-1 (mobile home park). According to the future land use map, and Building Official Steve Gilbert, the accompanying underlying land use for the Pines property is partially retail/office/residential and partially commercial.
According to Gilbert, the property owner would have to obtain a city-commission-approved comprehensive plan change, and likely a city-commission-approved rezoning approval as well, in order to redevelop the property as anything other than a mobile home park.
Several meetings took place at the Pines Park clubhouse after the property was put on the market earlier this year. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Earlier this year, the Pines Trailer Park Homeowners Association and the park residents were unsuccessful in their efforts to form a co-op and secure the financing needed to purchase the land their mobile homes are located on. Those efforts included several homeowners’ association and resident meetings held in the Pines Park clubhouse.
Prepared by homeowners’ association secretary Kathy Diskey, the minutes for the April 18 homeowners’ association meeting addressed a potential rezoning of the Pines Park property and stated, “The new purchaser of the park will have to get the property rezoned in order to change the land use from a resident park to something else. It is hard to guess how long that process would take.”
The Sept. 12 letter indicates Pines Park Investors LLC currently has no known plans to redevelop the Pines Trailer Park property for an alternative use.
HOLMES BEACH – Anna Maria Island developer and business owner Shawn Thomas Kaleta, 45, of Holmes Beach, was arrested for driving under the influence and resisting arrest on June 15.
In a 29-page police report, Holmes Beach Police Officer Andrew Adkins said that he observed a black Mercedes-Benz SUV speeding while traveling east on Manatee Avenue. While following the vehicle across the Anna Maria Island Bridge, he noticed that the driver was driving erratically, causing him to initiate a traffic stop.
In the police report, Adkins said Kaleta did not follow directions, left the SUV without being ordered to do so and failed to provide his driver’s license. Once out of the car, Adkins said that Kaleta continued to disregard directions, placing a phone call and giving the officer varying stories about whether he was on his way to visit his mother in the hospital or on his way back.
Kaleta
Adkins attempted a field sobriety test after detecting alcohol on Kaleta, who refused to cooperate, according to the report. When the officer informed him that he was under arrest, Kaleta pulled away and didn’t comply with orders to stop, resulting in Adkins wrestling him to the ground to complete the arrest.
While at the police station, Kaleta complained of being dehydrated and asked for water, which restarted the DUI observation period, according to the report. He then asked for medical attention. After paramedics cleared him, Kaleta requested to go to the hospital, where Adkins said he spent more than an hour in the restroom before Adkins assisted him out.
According to the report, Kaleta was released from the hospital with no medical issues, and declined to give a breath or blood sample. He was transported to the county jail where he was released the following day on $620 bond.
He is charged with DUI and resisting arrest without violence, both misdemeanors, and is scheduled for an arraignment on Monday, July 17 at 9 a.m. at the Manatee County Courthouse in Bradenton.
ANNA MARIA – City Attorney Becky Vose has requested separate shade meetings to discuss separate lawsuits pertaining to repeat noise ordinance violations at two vacation rental properties.
The shade, or private, meetings are scheduled immediately after the Thursday, April 13 city commission meeting.
The lawsuits were filed after Special Master Gerald Buhr, in separate actions, declared each vacation rental property to be a public nuisance because vacation rental guests at each property received three noise ordinance violation citations within a 12-month period.
In June 2022, the city filed a lawsuit against Mangoes on Magnolia LLC for the repeat noise ordinance violations that occurred at a vacation rental home at 313 Magnolia Ave. Orlando resident Rajendra Patel is listed as the LLC’s registered agent.
Multiple noise ordinance violations led to this vacation rental home at 205 South Bay Boulevard being declared a public nuisance. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In the Mangoes on Magnolia lawsuit, the city seeks as injunctive release a court order that would prevent the home from being used as a vacation rental for up to one year.
In August 2022, the city filed a lawsuit against Beach to Bay Investments Inc., AMI Locals LLC and developer Shawn Kaleta for repeat noise violations that occurred at a vacation rental home at 205 South Bay Blvd.
On March 22, the attorneys representing the city and Beach to Bay In- vestments agreed to a 30-day extension to conduct settlement negotiations.
“The parties have agreed to enter settlement negotiations to possibly avoid further litigation in this matter,” according to the extension request document.
When requesting the shade meetings, Vose said, “I desire advice regarding the litigation.”
After noting that none of the current commissioners have participated in a shade meeting, Vose explained the behind-closed-doors process that will include the mayor, the five commissioners, the city attorney and a court reporter who will create a verbatim transcript of the discussion. The transcript of the private meeting becomes a public record after the lawsuit is over.
To date, no court hearings have been scheduled for either case.
BRADENTON BEACH – City officials are pursuing two potential public-private partnerships with the Bradenton Beach Marina’s new principal, developer Shawn Kaleta.
One partnership pertains to proposed improvements to the city-owned parking lot next to the cell tower and the Public Works building, adjacent to the marina. Another pertains to the multi-use trail that passes through the marina property.
During a March 1 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting, City Attorney Ricinda Perry and Mayor John Chappie referred to Kaleta as the marina’s new owner. A mortgage and security agreement dated Jan. 10 lists the Bazzy Marine Corp. as the mortgagor and the Holiday, Florida-based Capital Property Ventures LLC as the mortgagee. The agreement references “a principal amount of $14 million from mortgagor and Aquabiz LLC.” Kaleta signed the agreement as the mortgagor and as president of the Bazzy Marine Corp.
According to the Florida Division of Corporations, John Porreca is listed as the registered agent and authorized person for Capital Property Ventures LLC. Aquabiz LLC lists attorney Louis Najmy as its registered agent and Kaleta and Daniel Courtney Zoller Jr. as managers.
When previously contacted by The Sun on numerous occasions and asked whether Kaleta purchased the marina from the Bazzy family, Najmy declined to comment. Former marina president Mike Bazzy also declined to comment.
CRA discussions
During the CRA meeting, Perry initiated the parking lot discussion and noted that the CRA members previously authorized Colliers Engineering to put together a parking plan. The plan Perry presented shows 23 parking spaces at the cell tower. Perry said the goal is to create a nicer parking lot and one that’s compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This preliminary parking lot plan was presented to CRA members. – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
“You have that plan in place. A property owner in the area is desirous of actually building out that parking plan and doing all the landscaping and markers, but they didn’t want to pay for installing pavers,” Perry said.
She identified the property owner as Kaleta and said Building Official Steve Gilbert wants to see an engineered parking plan before moving forward with the proposed improvements.
“We want to make clear that this is a public parking lot. We want to make sure that whatever’s put in there is low maintenance. It’s our parking lot. We’ll be maintaining it,” Chappie said.
“Do you have any objection with my office moving forward with that private individual to develop that parking area with either shell or some type of rock in that area?” Perry asked CRA members.
The CRA members unanimously approved a motion authorizing Perry, Gilbert, Woodard and Chappie to finalize the parking lot improvement plans and coordinate with Kaleta on the parking lot improvements.
Multi-use trail
During the same meeting, Chappie and Perry initiated two separate discussions about the multi-use trail that passes under the Cortez Bridge and passes through the marina parking lot along the south side of the bridge.
The multi-use trail passes under the Cortez Bridge. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In reference to the pending Cortez Bridge replacement project, Chappie said the existing multi-use trail under the bridge will be replaced by a new trail that’s hopefully wide enough to accommodate golf carts and other low speed vehicles too.
Chappie said city staff is researching the exact location of the city easement on the marina property that provides access to the trail area under the bridge.
“Working with Ricinda, we can talk with Kaleta to assure that’s part of our scenic right of way. I don’t think there’s going to be an issue,” Chappie said.
The multi-use trail that passes under the Cortez Bridge also passes through the Bradenton Beach Marina property. – Joe Hendricks Sun
Later in the meeting, Perry initiated discussion about connecting the multi-use trail under the bridge to the multi-use trail along Gulf Drive South that passes by Cortez Beach. She mentioned the CRA members’ long-held desire to create a dedicated tram path along Gulf Drive South with a potential crossing point at Fifth Street South, which provides access to Bay Drive South, Bridge Street and the trail that passes under the bridge.
“I have talked to Shawn Kaleta about his purchase at the marina – actually, it was Mike Bazzy and Shawn Kaleta together – and walked their property, walked all the way down through Bridge Street and up and down Third Street talking about what the city is doing and what Mr. Kaleta is doing in that area. There was interest by him to work together with the city. He’s also talked to Elliott Falcione with the TDC (Tourist Development Council) about doing a major improvement to the multi-use trail that the city has,” Perry said.
She noted Kaleta owns a lot of properties in those areas and said he’s expressed interest in working with the city, and potentially the TDC, in providing some construction assistance to further enhance that corridor that’s heavily used by pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.
Perry asked the CRA members if they were interested in formulating a workplan and a budget to pursue the trail improvements.
CRA Chair Ralph Cole said, “It’s part of the goal to make this a more walkable community, which gets cars off the road. It’s a nice walk down to Bridge Street from the north end hotels and vacation rentals. I think it’s a good idea any time you can get help with funding. It’s a win-win situation.”
CRA member David Bell expressed concerns about the large number of pedestrians that walk along Bay Drive South between Bridge Street and Third Street South, where there are currently no sidewalks.
The portion of Bay Drive South between Bridge Street and Third Street South is heavily traveled by pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists and others. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“Until we resolve that bottleneck, there’s really no point adding more traffic to that area that’s already dangerously overpopulated with cars, pedestrians, bicycles and trams. Until we resolve that, I don’t want to see us add more traffic to that area,” Bell said.
In response, Cole said, “One of our main objectives in the CRA district is to bring people to the CRA district. What we’re doing is going to make it safer and create a pathway so you don’t have everybody walking down Gulf Drive.”
Perry sought and received authorization to formulate a plan to connect the multi-use trail from Gulf Drive South to the Cortez Bridge using Fifth Street South and Bay Drive South as connecting streets, with Bell casting the lone opposition vote.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Privacy choicesWe use Google Analytics to understand readership and improve the website. Analytics cookies are optional and can be accepted or declined.Privacy Policy
