Bali Hai legal dispute continues

MANATEE COUNTY – A court has ruled in favor of the city of Holmes Beach’s quest to stop the use of a lounge and bar installed without proper permits at the Bali Hai Beach Resort. Unfortunately for the city, the ruling was open-ended, at least for 30 days.

Manatee County Circuit Court Judge Charles Sniffen heard arguments from attorney Erica Augello for the city and attorney Michelle Grantham representing the Bali Hai’s ownership. The ruling involves the city’s motion to dismiss a counterclaim from the resort owners.

Sniffen ruled in favor of the city’s motion to dismiss but with the stipulation that the resort’s attorneys have 30 days to amend the counterclaim and resubmit it for consideration by the court.

In the counterclaim, Bali Hai’s owner alleges that the city’s demand for a site plan and that service stop until the site plan is approved at the onsite bar/lounge is financially damaging the resort, which was installed without permits from the Holmes Beach building department. The resort’s owner is seeking financial relief from the city and requested a trial in the amended counter-complaint filed April 26, alleging breach of contract.

During the Aug. 5 hearing, Grantham presented a letter from city attorney Patricia Petruff stating that city leaders would work with the resort to allow service to hotel guests to continue at the onsite lounge if the resort’s owners submitted a site plan for approval by city leaders and all applicable fees. Grantham said her client submitted the requested site plan despite believing it’s not necessary for the use of the lounge and that the letter constitutes a contract between her client and the city.

The lounge, along with other construction work done on the resort property, has been a point of contention between city leaders and the resort’s owner for more than a year due to no permits being applied for or given by the city’s building department for the work. The changes on the property also require a site plan approval under city code, which has not been given by city commissioners due to ongoing issues with the site plan submitted by the resort’s representatives. The resort’s representatives have argued since early 2020 that a site plan approval is not needed for the lounge and that it was an existing use on the property. City representatives have said the lounge was not an existing use and needs approval in order to operate legally.

Despite the ongoing issues, the resort’s lounge has continued to operate, leading to the city’s lawsuit against the resort owner to stop the use of the lounge and the sale of alcohol on the property until the site plan can be approved.

When ruling on the city’s motion to dismiss the amended counterclaim with prejudice, Sniffen said he does not see any evidence from what was presented that the city entered into a contract with the resort or how the resort’s representatives providing a site plan for approval would benefit the city. He added that for it to be a contract, the city would need to benefit in some way from the agreement.

Instead of dismissing the counter-complaint with prejudice, which would prevent the resort’s attorneys from resubmitting the claim for reconsideration by the court, Sniffen gave Grantham 30 days from the date of the hearing to amend the countercomplaint and resubmit it for a future hearing.