Another vacation rental home deemed public nuisance
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.”
Related coverage
