Somers Point council members on Nov. 20 heard from LBH LLC’s attorney and the restaurant operator after the applicant said a five‑year tax abatement for 101 East Maryland Ave. (the Mexiquila site) was mistakenly marked approved by the tax assessor.

Michael Lario, who identified himself as an attorney at Nemat, Davis and Goldstein, told the council the assessor’s office stamped and mailed an approval in January 2024 but the city later notified the applicant that “that approval was actually issued in error” and that counsel had not formally granted the assessor authority to do so. Lario said the applicant relied on the notice and reinvested money in the property, which he estimated would have produced about $105,000 in tax savings over five years.

“Based upon that documentation, certain investments were made,” Lario said. “That came at pretty significant shock to the applicant.” Operator Peyton Bowman told the council the business undertook substantial renovations — including a new roof, asbestos remediation, window and interior work and repaving of the parking area — and said the loss of the anticipated abatement would force the operator to “reevaluate everything.”

Lario also raised a separate point about the ordinance’s application fee: the city code requires an application fee equal to 1.5% of anticipated construction costs. For an estimated $2,450,000 of construction, he said, that equates to roughly $36,000 and argued the fee calculation must have a nexus to actual review costs.

Council responded by adopting Resolution 267 authorizing an executive session for attorney‑client advice and potential litigation related to the LBH LLC tax abatement application. The council took a short recess and moved into executive session at the end of the meeting.

Background: Lario said the building — formerly Clancy’s by the Bay and now Mexiquila — was purchased in July 2022 and required extensive repairs. He told the council the city’s five‑year tax abatement ordinance (Chapter 228, Article 4) allows phased tax relief for qualifying commercial and residential improvement projects and that the applicant believes the project meets those criteria.

What happens next: Council adopted Resolution 267 to receive legal advice in closed session and did not take further public action on the abatement at the meeting. The matter was listed for executive session; no final public vote on the underlying abatement application was recorded during the open meeting.