Commission accepts settlement in land dispute
By Lisa Neff
Islander Reporter
 |
The Bradenton Beach City Commission last week agreed to settle a longstanding dispute with a development company. The agreement will involve the city’s purchase of beachfront property in the 1400 block of Gulf Drive North for $375,000. Islander Photo: Lisa Neff
|
Bradenton Beach commissioners voted to settle a longstanding legal dispute Aug. 31, but they did not lay grievances to rest. The commission, by a 3-2 vote, agreed to accept an offer from Island Inc./Beach Development Inc., the owners of a half-acre of beachfront property that the city has deemed preservation. The vote followed nothing short of a plea from acting city attorney Greg Hootman, who said he has spent “thousands and thousands” of hours on the case, which dates back to the late 1990s.
“This case needs to be settled and it needs to settle for $375,000 payable over 20 years,” said Hootman during the afternoon meeting at city hall.
“There comes a time to have to pay the piper,” he added.
The meeting came weeks after a commission “shade” meeting on the subject.
Commissioners scheduled the Aug. 31 session to hear from the public, but the only attendees, other than Commissioners Gay Breuler, Bob Connors, Janet Vosburgh and Janie Robertson and Mayor Bob Bartelt, were Hootman, Island Inc. attorney Mark Barnebey and two reporters.
Hootman reminded commissioners of the meeting’s purpose — “to consider a settlement in a longstanding piece of litigation” — and then revisited the long history in the dispute over development of bayside and Gulfside property in the 1400 block of Gulf Drive.
Back in the 1990s, Hootman said the developers acquired 2.6 acres of property, most on the bayside, some on the Gulfside, with Gulf Drive bisecting the purchased land.
He said the developers knew when they purchased the property that a portion of it was identified for preservation in the city’s future land-use map and comprehensive plan.
Further, Hootman said, the developers were aware when they purchased the land that the city had committed to allow for a higher density in the bayside project because it had deemed the Gulfside property undevelopable. The city, Hootman said, had made the concession because it did not want to “take” property.
But as the project moved forward, developers encountered a hitch. Other city regulations, specifically height restrictions, got in the way of a what they hoped would be a more dense development by the bay.
Their effort to build a smaller project on the Gulfside also hit a roadblock.
But a legal battle has slowly moved forward, with the parties focused on a half-acre of preservation land on the Gulfside and what should or could happen with 10 units provided for, according to city planning documents, but not built.
“Time has marched on,” Hootman said.
The dispute has involved the developers, the city, state agencies, a number of attorneys and a judge who nudged the parties into mediation and encouraged a settlement.
In the last couple of years, several offers have been raised.
The city came closest to an agreement to settle when it seemed a state grant might help purchase the preservation land. At the time, Island Inc.’s price was $2 million and the city commission was considering contributing $600,000, with the remainder to come from the state grant.
When the grant fell through, Island Inc. amended its settlement offer — $600,000 payable by the city over 20 years — but the commission declined.
Last week, Island Inc. dropped the price to $375,000, probably payable over 20 years, and commissioners, reluctantly, accepted.
Robertson, Vosburgh and Connors voted to accept the offer; Breuler and Bartelt voted against the offer.
Hootman said in addition to a clear title to the preservation land, the city would have 10 units of “density” that might be sold or used elsewhere.
“The city is not just purchasing a half-acre of sand on the beach,” he said.
Commissioners and the mayor, however, questioned whether those unbuilt units have value.
“I didn’t think it could be hop-scotched,” Bartelt said.
Near the end of the meeting, after some confusion about whether the commission should delay a vote, Robertson motioned to accept the offer.
“The city is still culpable for mistakes that were made in the beginning. We should share some part of the responsibility,” she said, noting, as did other commissioners, that the case dates back to a time when none of them held office.
Breuler seconded the motion for the sake of continuing the discussion. She said she wanted to settle, but she wanted to offer less — $187,500.
But Hootman urged the commission to accept the offer, which they eventually did with the split vote that also directed the attorney to work out the agreement, which would detail a payment plan.
After Bartelt closed the meeting, Hootman congratulated the mayor and commissioners for bringing to an end the city’s longest-running lawsuit.
“You did it in the city’s best interest,” Hootman said.
To Bartelt, the settlement acceptance seemed a consolation prize.
“We adopted this beehive, as you will,” he said. “We just have to deal with it.”
| 
