Special magistrate Michael Connolly found former Holmes Beach Commissioner Jayne Christenson in violation of city code March 28 for advertising only a portion of her property at 132 49th St. as a vacation unit.
Connolly imposed the city’s requested $127.24 administrative cost for the hearing.
Christenson was cited by the city for the same violation in 2021, when she said she said she had made a “verbiage” error in an online advertisement by listing the property as a one-bedroom vacation unit.
Christenson, who has homestead exemption on the property, can rent the four-bedroom residence for up to 30 days a year, but city code requires vacation units be advertised and rented out in their entirety — not as a unit or bedroom within the dwelling.
At the March 28 magistrate hearing, the city brought two cases involving Christenson’s property before Connolly — one focused on the improper advertisement and the other on an alleged improper rental violation.
Code compliance officer Nate Brown said Harmari, a software program the city uses to monitor short-term rental postings, detected a Feb. 2 listing for Christenson’s property as a one-bedroom, one-bathroom unit available for rent by up to two people.
But the property has four bedrooms and three bathrooms. So code compliance supervisor JT Thomas posted a notice of violation at the property for advertising only a portion of the home.
While there, Thomas met guests staying in the vacation unit, resulting in a violation for renting a portion of the property instead of its entirety.
However, the city dropped the rental violation allegation after Christenson’s attorney, Sean Flynn of Bradenton-based Flynn Law, said the guests were allowed to stay at the property free of charge and were not renters.
While Christenson brought the advertising violation into compliance by Feb. 11, the city brought the case before Connolly due to the previous citation for the same issue.
The city requested Connolly provide a finding of fact to determine if the Feb. 2 Vrbo ad for the vacation unit violated code, as well as impose a $127.24 administrative fee.
To illustrate the violation, the city provided a screenshot of the Feb. 2 Vrbo posting, which listed one bedroom available for rent and included photos depicting a portion of the vacation unit.
Flynn argued the ad also listed the property’s four bedrooms and three bathrooms, as well as accurate square footage, but limited renters to one bedroom to specify a sleeping space and minimize occupancy to two people.
“I can understand how someone could potentially be confused but the majority of evidence clearly lends itself to four-bedroom, three-bathroom, occupancy of two,” Flynn said.
Christenson said at the hearing that renters and guests are instructed to use the entrance to the property’s mother-in-law suite in the back but are allowed full access to the property. She said a deadbolt between the suite and the rest of the property is “inactive.”
“We try to be in compliance,” Christenson said. “We do everything we can.”
They requested Connolly dismiss the advertising and rental violations.
City attorney Erica Augello said the municipality has no issues with limiting occupancy in a vacation unit but the “flawed” Vrbo ad was a violation since it provided conflicting information and failed to clearly advertise the entire home.
She added that the advertisement only included photos of one bedroom and one bathroom — not the master bedroom or bathroom, or the kitchen.
“Regardless of intent to limit occupancy, it’s an improper ad,” Augello said. “How would a member of the public distinguish what is actually being rented?”
Connolly called the case a “difficult one” but found the advertisement was inaccurate and ruled in the city’s favor.
The city’s next special magistrate hearing will be at 10 a.m. Tuesday, May 23, at city hall, 5801 Marina Drive.