The case against vacation rentals in Anna Maria has been kicked up to the next level.
At the Feb. 12 city commission special workshop, a 3-2 vote determined the next step in the city’s debate concerning the continued rise of vacation rentals.
It came down to word choices and a perceived lack of research into the legal advice that pushed the decision to seek a higher authority.
Chair Chuck Webb built his case to take the city’s code to the 12th Judicial Circuit Court by pulling apart the legal opinion of attorney Susan Trevarthen. “It’s sloppy,” he said. “There’s no evidence of research, no studies of past case law, nothing showing that she got an opinion from the attorney general and the terms she used don’t match up with the terms we use in the city code.”
Trevarthen was contracted Jan. 9 by the city to give an opinion on whether vacation homes in the city could be further regulated. Her fee was $6,000.
The mismatch of terms was the linchpin in Webb’s argument. Trevarthen used the term “single-family detached building” and “hotel” to describe the units that become vacation rentals. Anna Maria’s code uses neither term. It describes rental units as “dwellings.”
Commissioners Doug Copeland and Dale Woodland argued against Webb, questioning what difference a word could make.
Webb countered by reminding everyone that wording in a legal document must be precise.
“If you look at the two words,” Webb said, “it seems like a small thing, but when you take the definitions and sit them side by side, you can see that they don’t match up to their intended meanings.
Webb quoted Merriam-Webster’s building definition as “a structure with a roof and walls that is used as a place for people to live, work, do activities, store things, etc.” The definition of dwelling is a place where a person lives.
“I know it’s small, but inconsistencies like this and the lack of evidence of research, I don’t believe that this is an opinion we can stand with,” said Webb.
Commissioner Nancy Yetter agreed. “Sounds like we need to get our money back.”
Woodland agreed on a few points Webb made, but also made his case for caution.
“If you’re not specific in the wording of the code, then when people violate the law, the burden falls on the government and not the people,” Woodland said. If the court sides with us, we’re talking about the potential for hundreds of lawsuits.
Webb countered that if the court decides with the city to uphold the 1996 code, rental owners pursuing legal action wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Webb said he didn’t want to shut down rentals, adding that vacation and season rentals have been a part of Anna Maria since the city was founded. He proposed that the city make provisions to keep the existing rental businesses operating.
“We need clear direction so we can move forward for future developments,” Webb said. “For that, though, we need to take it to the next level — to the circuit court.”
The commissioners voted 3-2 to send the case to the 12th Circuit Court, with Woodland and Copeland opposed.
The next regular city commission meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 26, at city hall, 10005 Gulf Drive.
Under Chapter 509 resort rentals are already controlled. The police department is already looking up rental units that don’t pay tourist taxes and aren’t inspected. The police already enforce the noise codes or at least they did under Chief Kenney, Lt. Damato and Sergeant Dangler. Most of the people complaining the loudest are the same ones that have the most to gain. It is already controlled.
“YOU GO GIRL”
Why doesn’t the city ask the Florida Attorney General? Isn’t it cheaper and quicker than going to the 12th Judicial Circuit Court?
“The Attorney General defends the constitutionality of statutes duly enacted by the Legislature and is authorized to issue formal legal opinions at the request of various public officials on questions relating to the application of state law.”
Because someone has already sent a letter with similar questions.
May save some time and money.
Excerpts from the Attorney General’s Office:
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/5DFB7F27FB483C4685257D900050D65E
Question 1. Does section 509.032(7)(b), Florida Statutes, permit the city to regulate the location of vacation rentals through zoning?
It is clear that municipalities may zone land to pursue a number of legitimate objectives related to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community.[7] Municipalities have the power to regulate the use of land and buildings within prescribed districts through zoning.[8] Zoning is generally defined as the legislative division of a region into districts with different regulations within the districts for land use, building size, and the like.[9] While a municipality may enact zoning ordinances and regulations, a legislative enactment on the same subject matter controls.[10] Therefore, to the extent a municipal ordinance conflicts with a state statute in regard to the prohibition against any local act which seeks to prohibit vacation rentals, the municipal ordinance must fail.[11]
Thus, while a local government may regulate vacation rentals, it may not enact a local law, ordinance, or regulation which would operate to prohibit vacation rentals. To the extent a zoning ordinance addresses vacation rentals in an attempt to prohibit them in a particular area where residences are otherwise allowed, it would appear that a local government would have exceeded the regulatory authority granted in section 509.032(7)(b), Florida Statutes.
Yup…. googled it and found all that out without spending $6,000.
Who will the city take to court? Which rental property owners will the city target?