HOLMES BEACH – Another bill in the Florida House of Representatives is proposed to undo local vacation rental regulations, pushing control to the state.
House Bill 105 is designed to preempt local restrictions on vacation rentals pertaining to sanitation standards, inspections, duration or frequency of rentals and any prohibitions of vacation rentals.
All local vacation rental ordinances that were in place on or before June 1, 2011 are exempt from the restrictions of the bill concerning the prohibition of vacation rentals and regulations regarding the frequency and duration of rentals.
In Holmes Beach, city leaders are concerned about the bill because it would effectively do away with the city’s vacation rental certificate ordinance and regulations, which were passed in 2016. Local governments would be able to require the owners and operators of vacation rentals to maintain the name of a designated contact and information for someone responsible for each unit.
Inspections related to enforcement of the Florida Fire Code would not be impacted, such as those planned by officials at West Manatee Fire Rescue to begin this fall to address potential life safety issues. Inspections of units related to the enforcement of the Florida Building Code would also be exempt.
City Attorney Erica Augello said the city’s lobbyist is working diligently to oppose the passage of the bill, which is currently in the state Regulatory Reform and Economic Development Subcommittee in the House. The House bill has also been referred to the Local Administration, Federal Affairs and Special Districts Subcommittee.
If the new bill passes in committees, it would need to make it through a vote on the Florida House floor before going to the Senate to go through the same approval process to reach Gov. Ron DeSantis’s desk for final approval before it becomes law. The bill states it would take effect on July 1. As of press time for The Sun, no vote had been recorded for the bill.
HOLMES BEACH – Special Magistrate Michael Connolly is giving the family of one property owner time to come into compliance with city codes before facing fines, but not much time.
Connolly ruled against property owner Daniel Spitzer who stood accused of violating the city’s vacation rental ordinance by renting his R-1 zoned property for stays of less than 30 days and advertising for short-term stays. Code Compliance Officer James Thomas said the issues with the property date back to June 2016 and that he has been trying to get Spitzer to come into compliance for years.
Spitzer was unable to attend the July 26 hearing due to being hospitalized with a serious condition, however, his daughter-in-law Marissa Spitzer attended by telephone in his absence. She said that she had only recently found out about the issues with the property when she was notified of the code violation posting at the rental home by a neighbor. She agreed to work to bring the property into compliance but said it might be difficult given her location in New Jersey and lack of access to her father-in-law’s online advertising accounts.
Connolly said that she has until the end of day on Monday, Aug. 8 to remove or alter any advertising for less than 30-day rentals, get a new vacation rental certificate from the city, cancel any short-term rentals booked through the end of the calendar year and provide proof to code officers that all scheduled stays of less than 30 consecutive days have been canceled.
If the property remains out of compliance, the owner could face fines of up to $250 per day.
While Spitzer said she believes she can meet the deadline, she added that she feels it’s unfair to require residential properties zoned R-1 to be rented for a minimum of 30 days while other properties in the city can be rented for seven days. She said her father-in-law relies on the rental income from the property.
City Attorney Erica Augello said that while she understands the family’s plight, the code issues have existed on the property for years with the owner’s knowledge.
HOLMES BEACH – Four cases came in front of special magistrate Michael Connolly Feb. 19, including one repeat offender.
The first case concerned work without a permit and a davit that was constructed on top of a city drainage pipe at 652 Key Royale Drive.
Code Compliance Officer James Thomas presented the case with testimony from City Engineer Lynn Burnett.
Thomas said the davit was built too close to the property line and was installed without obtaining a permit from the city’s building department. Burnett added that the concrete pad that the davit is on and the davit itself are constructed on a stormwater/drainage easement and on top of a stormwater outfall pipe that is collapsing from the additional weight. She recommended that the davit and concrete pad be removed within the next six months to allow for much-needed repairs to the pipe.
During the hearing, it was revealed by building department clerk Angie Birdwell that a permit for demolition of the davit had been issued on Feb. 10 and is good for 180 days.
Connolly ruled that the property owner has 180 days from the permit date to removed the davit and has to pay $127.24 in hearing costs. An additional $250 per day fine may be assessed if the property owner does not come into compliance within the recommended time.
Repeat advertising offender Mohamed Walliagha was next on the docket for advertising his R-1 rental property as a vacation rental with higher than allowed occupancy.
Thomas presented the case, stating that advertising for the property at 515 75th St. allows for rentals of up to 16 people in the seven-bedroom property and for a period of less than the 30-day minimum allowed in the R-1 residential district. Under the city’s ordinances, rental units are allowed a maximum occupancy of two people per bedroom or a total of six, whichever is greater, capping Walliagha’s property at a maximum occupancy of 14.
This is the second time Walliagha has been brought before Connolly during a special magistrate hearing for advertising violations. The first time was Sept. 11, 2019, when Connolly ruled in the city’s favor, ordering the property owner to bring his advertising into compliance with the city’s ordinances. Thomas said that while the advertising did come into compliance for a while after the special magistrate hearing, Walliagha began listing the property on vacation rental sites VRBO, Home Away and Flip Key in December 2019 again in violation of the city’s ordinances. Thomas asked for Walliagha to pay $127.24 in fees along with a $250 per day fine for days the advertising was out of compliance from Dec. 19, 2019, to Jan. 30, 2020.
Walliagha argued that his advertising was on a three-month hold with the websites and was reactivated after that time without his notice. He also stated that since the property is his primary home and is homesteaded, he does not have to adhere to the city’s ordinances concerning rentals in the R-1 district. Thomas argued that the property is listed with all seven bedrooms for rent and that he showed the advertisements to the property owner well in advance of the hearing date, stating that he’s been working with Walliagha for two to three years to bring the property into compliance.
Connolly ruled in the city’s favor, ordering Walliagha to pay a $250 fine along with $127.24 in fees.
The third and fourth cases concerned dilapidated structures, one at 3017 Avenue E and another at 605 Emerald Lane.
The Avenue E property, owned by 3015 Avenue E LLC, was deemed by Thomas to be a dilapidated and unsafe structure.
Holmes Beach Police Chief Bill Tokajer said that the police officers had responded to the property Jan. 3, finding vagrants squatting on the property. He said the vagrants were removed from the property and said that officers had attempted to contact the property owner to have it boarded up.
Holmes Beach Police Chief Bill Tokajer testifies Feb. 19 during one code compliance hearing before the special magistrate. – Kristin Swain | Sun
Thomas said since then the property had not been boarded up and was still open to the elements and abandoned, though it appeared that someone had mowed the lawn. He asked for fees along with a $250 per day fine for every day the property is not in compliance along with a $100-250 per day fine for every day the property remains out of compliance after the recommended 30 days to obtain a permit and 60 days to execute the permit to completion, including demolishing the structure, rehabilitating it or presenting a plan to the building department for rehabilitation. Thomas also noted that a permit had been pulled for the structure in 2019 that allowed for three units to be constructed inside the structure. He said it appeared that before work stopped at the property, five units were being constructed in violation of the permit.
The property owner was not present during the hearing.
Connolly ruled that the property owner has 30 days from the hearing date to obtain a permit from the building department and 60 days from the permit date to complete work or come back before the magistrate for an extension. He also granted the request to impose $127.24 in fees and a $250 per day fine if the property owner does not bring the structure into compliance.
The Emerald Lane property, currently owned by Stephanie Morris of Emerald8 LLC, was a bit of a different story. While Burnett said she inspected the property with Building Official Neal Schwartz and found it to be an unsafe structure, resident Tom Sanger stepped up to say that he was currently in negotiations to purchase the property in an owner-financed transaction to allow for the repairs needed at the home.
Two neighboring property owners also stepped up to serve as witnesses as to the condition of the property, Peter O’Brien and Jim McIntire. O’Brien said that he’s observed the property in its same, boarded up, dilapidated condition for over two years. McIntire said that he hopes the property can be sold to someone who will care for it and bring it up to the standards of the Key Royale neighborhood.
Connolly found in favor of the city, giving the current owner until March 6 to record a deed of sale or obtain a demolition permit. If a new owner is recorded for the property, that person has 30 days to obtain a permit and six months to complete renovations or come back before the magistrate to ask for an extension. He also assessed a $127.24 fee to the current owner and a $250 per day fine if his timeline for renovations or demolition is not met.
The next Holmes Beach special magistrate hearing will be held at 10 a.m. on March 18 at city hall, 5701 Marina Drive.
HOLMES BEACH – City commissioners may have dropped the business tax receipt requirement for residential rental homes and units, but they’re considering reclaiming some control by adding longer-term rentals to the vacation rental certificate program.
Under the city’s VRC program, short-term rentals, those rented for less than 30-day periods, typically seven days, are required to pay a fee and obtain a certificate to be posted at the rental property after passing an inspection from code compliance officers. Commissioners are moving forward an ordinance to add monthly rentals to that program as well.
Currently, vacation rentals must undergo an inspection and renewal of the rental certificate every two years. To lessen the blow to monthly rental property owners, Commissioner Carol Soustek, who owns a property that’s rented seasonally, suggested finding a way to make the program accessible to owners who may not make as much money from their properties as vacation rental owners. She said that with so few monthly rentals still available on the Island, she doesn’t want to push owners to move toward selling their properties or offering them as vacation rentals.
After a little back and forth between her fellow commissioners, Soustek suggested having monthly rental certificates renewed every three years instead of every two years.
Earlier in the evening, commissioners voted to approve an increase in cost for VRC initial inspections and renewals to $695. With monthly rentals included in the program, Mayor Judy Titsworth provided a cost analysis from city Treasurer Lori Hill that put those costs at $545 for monthly and vacation rentals.
City leaders estimate there are between 1,100 and 1,200 vacation rental properties and around 300 monthly rental properties in Holmes Beach. At $545, Hill estimated that the cost of the VRC program would be equal to the cost, $751,008 for two years.
Before commissioners move forward, they asked Titsworth to go back to Hill and make sure that the $545 fee could support the program with renewals for vacation rentals at two years and monthly rentals every three years.
HOLMES BEACH – There were eight cases on the docket for a code compliance special magistrate hearing July 31. Six cases were granted a continuance to a Sept. 11 hearing. The continuance requested for the additional two cases was denied and the two were heard and ruled on by Special Magistrate Michael Connolly.
The two cases that were heard both concerned properties owned by Anthony Properties Inc. The allegations against the properties, 302 28th St. and 402 28th St., included advertising for a length of stay less than 30 days and renting the properties for less than 30 days at a time. Both properties are in the R-1 zone which is only allowed to have rentals of 30 days or more. Neither property has a vacation rental certificate issued by the city.
Speaking for the property owner, who was absent from the hearing, was executive assistant Stacey Dorsey who asked for a continuance for both cases due to her employer’s absence on a family trip. Connolly denied the request, saying that with a notice of hearing mailed, posted at city hall and posted on the residence on July 4, the property owner had more than enough time to request a continuance prior to his trip. The request for a continuance was received by code compliance officers July 26.
In the case against the property owner at 302 28th St., Code Compliance Officer Nate Brown said that online the property is advertised as a minimum of three-night rental and that he was able to book the property for three nights. He said that booking for the property of three nights was disabled the day prior to the hearing. Code Compliance Officer James Thomas also testified that he had observed at least two times where the property was rented for less than 30 days. The first notice of violation was placed at the property on May 23.
The case against Anthony Properties at 402 28th St. contained much of the same information with officers providing photographic evidence that the property has been rented for less than 30 days at a time and that online advertising has been identified advertising the property for rent for a minimum of three-night rentals. Brown said that he was able to secure a reservation for the property for the three-night minimum online though that function was disabled on the advertisement the day prior to the hearing. He said that the advertisements for both properties stated a three-night minimum stay.
In both cases, Connolly ruled that the property owner has until Aug. 7 to correct the issues at the properties or a $250 per day fine per property will begin on Aug. 8 and continue until the issues are corrected. Also in both cases, the property owner was instructed to pay the $127.24 administrative fees for each case.
Both cases were placed on the Sept. 11 special magistrate hearing docket for an update.
HOLMES BEACH – At their June 27 work session, commissioners continued the discussion on how to amend the city’s vacation rental certificate program ordinance, ending the discussion with some decisions made and other still up for consideration.
In previous discussions, commissioners agreed to raise the amount of vacation rental certificate initial applications and renewals from $150 to $600. During their June 27 work session, commissioners agreed to a new recommendation from city staff to lower that amount to $440. Mayor Judy Titsworth said that the new amount should cover the costs of the program without overcharging rental agents and owners. Chief Bill Tokajer said that the number was the product of updated calculations by staff and that he felt confident that with the number of rental units in the city that charging $440 per application and every two years for renewals would cover the costs incurred by the city to manage the program.
Tokajer also suggested changing the amount charged for different violations of the vacation rental program to reflect the seriousness of some violations.
For lesser violations, commissioners agreed to charge $150 for a first violation for advertising that violates city codes or ordinances, failure to list the VRC number on all advertising, failure to list the number of parking spaces on all advertising, failing to register any new rental agent with the city within 15 business days, failure to schedule an inspection within 30 days of application and failure to schedule a re-inspection within 30 days of an inspection failure, all of which offer 48 hours to come into compliance before a second citation is issued.
Also incurring a $150 first violation fine is the improper placement of a short-term rental sign on the property, which gives 24 hours to comply with city codes before a second violation and fine are issued.
Renting a property for an improper length of stay and failure to comply with any advertising requirement, including statements concerning noise in residential areas, also incur a $150 first violation.
Renting a property without a valid VRC issued by the city will incur a $500 first violation fine.
Exceeding maximum occupancy limits, advertising without a valid VRC, advertising that does not specifically state a seven-day minimum and advertising exceeding the maximum occupancy all incur a $250 first violation.
Commissioners also agreed to move forward with language suggested by Commissioner Kim Rash to better explain the city’s stance on noise in residential areas. Rash suggested putting examples on the city’s pamphlets and in the VRC ordinance required language to be posted in rental units to help visitors better understand what the different noise levels are and what is and is not permitted in residential areas.
Talks on changes to the VRC program are expected to continue when commissioners meet July 9.
HOLMES BEACH – City leaders are considering implementing some changes to the vacation rental certificate program that may cost vacation rental owners a little more money at application and renewal.
“This is way better than it was the first time,” Commissioner Rick Hurst said of the proposed changes to the ordinance.
One of the biggest changes to the ordinance is a proposed increase in the cost for application and renewal every two years to $600 from $150. Mayor Judy Titsworth said the increase will allow the program to be self-sufficient, paying for itself without putting an undue burden on taxpayers or relying on fines for funding. She said her hope is that eventually the city will be able to have complete compliance with the program and issuing fines will be a rarity.
Another potential change is in how violators of the VRC program will be cited. Under the current ordinance, violators are given a warning and time to comply with the program’s rules. Repeat violators can be taken before a special magistrate by code compliance, though none have been brought before a special magistrate yet.
Under the proposed ordinance a first violation can result in a fine and any subsequent violations will result in fines and an appearance before the special magistrate where Titsworth hopes daily fines will be instated. Violators who do not pay their fines will automatically be taken before the special magistrate.
“It’s got the teeth in it we were looking for,” she said.
Commissioner Jim Kihm said he wants to make sure that serious violations of the program are addressed and discouraged by code compliance officers and the related fine amounts.
Though a proposed flat fine amount of $150 for a first violation, $500 for a second violation and $5,000 for an irreversible violation were suggested by city staff, commissioners are considering putting violations into tiers to separate serious violations from those that could simply be an oversight on the part of a rental agent or property owner.
City Attorney Patricia Petruff said the highest amount allowable for a first code enforcement violation is $250 per day. She encouraged commissioners to make sure there is a good balance in the ordinance between compliance and enforcement. Kihm asked her to come back to commissioners with the maximum applicable fine amounts allowed by the state for future discussion.
Commissioner Carol Soustek said she doesn’t feel that tiers for violations will be necessary if code compliance officers build a strong case for repeat violators to bring before the special magistrate.
The change of authorized agent fee is proposed to increase from $35 to $50. Reinspection and second reinspection fees are proposed to remain the same at $50 and $70 respectively.
Titsworth said she’d spoken with code compliance officers who assured her that the fees cover the costs of staff time, including benefits, to conduct the inspections.
Discussions on proposed changes to the VRC are expected to continue at a future commission work session.
