February 12th meeting of the city of Coco Beach special magistrate I'm here Mr Michael Bryan the the clerk to the special magistrates here and we have members of the city staff uh code enforcement team who are also here and
uh I think there's been some modifications to the agenda would you like to go over them real quick uh yes your honor um so the first case I'm going to ask uh to be dismissed as she's comeing to compliance the second case I'm going to
ask that we postpone the third case um asking for a postponement as well and as well as the uh the following case the first Massie case we're asking for a postponement okay so the the case that'll remain on the agenda is case
number 24259 with the respondent Richard bour yes okay all right well first off what I'm going to do is uh approve the minutes of the November 13th 2024 special magistrate
hearings that were kindly prepared by Mr Bryan and which the Attorney General says we must keep and maintain and I've approved those minutes thank you now besides City staff who do we have present
today sir he Richard B okay you're Mr bore okay that the reason I asked that is because weren't you here at a prior hearing yes sir do you remember the the rules and
everything um I think this is a qu quasi judicial proceeding and all that you remember me going over that yes okay so you're the only case on the agenda today so the the hearing is a Massy hearing and the reason we're here is to
determine whether or not you were or were not in violation on the date that you were supposed to be in compliance under the prior order you understand that right yes sir okay and you're going to you're going toe present the day for yourself right you're going to
speak um yes I can well it's up to you but that's fine that's fine okay cuz I need to swear you in if if you if you are as a witness um sure yeah okay okay who else is who else is going to
testify today I believe just us just us two just you two okay you're Daniel Crawford I know that and you're Mr V the respondent in that case I just cited is that correct yes sir do each of you saw me swear that the testimony you're about to give and the matter now he be the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth s you got yes yes okay thank you so I'm not going to go into my normal Spiel for the public about who who can speak and who can't because there's nobody here in the audience so let's proceed with the Massie hearing and M Crawford uh can I enter the packet
into evidence yes list all righty Mr bour I'm going to scan it while you scan it and then you can tell me if you have any objection to the documents being introduced into evidence you want me to sign this too this is the agenda
the end of okay Mr Bard do you have any objection to that document being introduced into evidence no it's submitted then okay all right um so just confirming
that we are here for case 24- 259 for Richard borer and the address is 1034 Bali Road and the next page you see the property appraiser um showing ownership
um previously the respondent was found in violation of 26.5 53 maximum occupancy um the respondent uh was ordered to take action to ensure that the advertisements and listings uh were
reduced to eight persons within uh one week of the order on slide 42 you'll see uh that this was Ma both first class and certified mail to the
respondent and that a Massie hearing uh notice was also sent uh via certified and first class mail to the respondent and on page 45 uh you'll see that as of yesterday um
that's the date there in the lower right hand corner um all of the listings still remain at 16 occupants so on the next slide uh you'll again see sleep sleeps 12 to 16 guests on the next slide you'll
see sleep 16 sleep 16 guests so it's in the opinion of the city that the the listings were not updated according to um The
order they do not clearly reflect the maximum occupancy of eight guests um and therefore the city is asking that the respondant uh be imposed a fine of $200 for the first day and
$150 for every subsequent day of non-compliance um and we're asking that this would begin November 2st 2024 the the day that he was ordered to be in compliance is there anything further at this time
no there's nothing Mr B it's your turn okay well um I I didn't really know what to expect here so I'm going to do my best um not
not really um I do appreciate Daniel work and everything she does um it would be wonderfully helpful to have some sort of notice on what is um viewed as an offending action so
that individuals can correct them um so with that in all respect um with that um caveat uh to the point
um I I would like to comply and and in in concept then I'll go into detail here in concept what these listings reflect our uh house is a house with bedrooms
that have beds these beds offer configuration okay I know the city wants to say have a maximum of eight people but there there are families that want to come that have one person per room except for all the kids and the cousins
are in the room with two beds that are full over full bunk right so that's four in one room and one in the other rooms so you can have eight people so just most of these
listings with with the exception of one um when you look at Airbnb VRBO those are the primary platforms it says sleep 16 but those are configurations I think in the last meeting I said the same thing you have like a McDonald's meal Special Value
Meal that says pick four you don't get all of them you pick four right so here what I need to do what I think I still need to do is be clear to say that these things where it says sleep 16 that's the
platform I can't change how Airbnb says with these little heads and whatever because I have the bedrooms that has a full over full bunk and it has another uh queen bed or what it doesn't mean two people are in the queen bed it doesn't mean four people are in that bunk it
could be one kid on top one kid on the bottom do you follow me so this says that there's this many beds and it is ambiguous it says sleep 16 people but that doesn't necessarily per se mean that I'm taking 16 people per
reservation so there is some guidance that I'm aware of um with another property I have have that was managed by a property management firm stay in Coco Beach that I think is called happy Palm stays now um and they have a
disclaimer in the texts I don't know exactly where cuz they had a listing for the property so I purchased it and it says maximum occup has similar configuration same same size house actually five bedroom three B beds are a little different there's a couple twin
beds this kind of a thing and I One More caveat I need to be competitive to get people in these are families that come they have kids cousins whatever the configuration is and you need to offer sleeping that accommodates them because it's competitive believe it or not and
there's vacancy and costs and things like this so This the uh stay in Coco Beach uh Happy Palms STS has a has a disclaimer that I I uh have in my listing with them in the other house and
I'm happy to put that disclaimer in here I actually had it in here I'm not sure if it's still in here that says the verbage of the city ordinance it says maximum occupancy is eight okay um so I just say even it's
you know I don't know how to get around I don't know what the advice would be in me having a room with a full over full bunk you know some people want that it it's going to add up and say sleep 16
so you know the way the city ordinance is written I think they had the image that every room right four bedroom is maximum there you know houses have more than four bedrooms every bedroom only
has a bed that's like a queen or a fo or a king that sleeps two people and that's just not the reality of beach houses it's just not the reality of trying to be competitive to court people that come down with cousins and nephews and whatever so there are houses with more
than four bedrooms there are houses with more than one bed and therefore Airbnb and vbo will always say will say in those cases sleeps 16 or 12 or 10 or what have you but it doesn't say that
I'm violating which says housing more now the last time we were here Danielle showed reviews that said hey a group was here with more than eight that I'd like to
see since November 14 if she has reviews that say Hey our group of of 9 10 11 12 16 is available I don't see that in this packet now um so I'd like to ask the
court the special magistrate if I can do the following if I can ensure the verbiage is on there like the property management firm happy Palms
day stay in Coco Beach I'm assuming that complied with the ordinance they manage I think 25 properties some of which are large properties like this um the listing here will still say
sleep 16 cuz I have bunk beds or what have you I mean I don't know if you're Rec commending that I rip out all the beds and only have occupancy per room of two in four of the rooms I turn one room into a study I I just I just don't know
if that's what the city wants so if I add the verbage that stained Cocoa Beach has I can I can pull it off verbatim and put it in there and then to ensure that I'm complying you monitor any documented
case a documented case a violation this is an implication you're implying that I'm violating it's not documenting by an Affidavit of a group of people signed by them that says yes our group was an
excess of eight I think there is enough uncertainty that I am truly acting in violation this is just your interpretation of the major listing sites which is Airbnb and vbo that I'm over and my claim is that it's a configuration issue like the value meal
at McDonald's I'm happy to add that verbage that would say whatever the Cocoa Beach said I mean basically I think it's pretty verbatim there's one um and and that's all I would I guess have to say I mean I I wish I
could have prepared and I could um could have ensured that that verbage was on in advance of this meeting um I wish I was coming here to say that it was added there because I didn't know I thought the last time we were here I was going to manage it I have gotten requests for
people that say hey can we stay we have so many people it was an excess of eight and I said no in every case um I would have to try to document that or or or pull those pull those you know um they message it's called an inquiry and then you decline the inquiry or request I
think it's called an inquiry um you know I just I just I'm I'm just not sure in a town like coco beach with beach houses and there's you know stack full of beds the one that I bought had more than beds to accommodate
eight people and I'm not sure that one that I bought was ever in violation from the mcys well I think this is being made more complex than it really needs to be because what the order said the respondent shall take action to
ensure that all advertisements and listings pertain to the subject vacation rental property clearly indicate and state that the maximum property occupancy is eight persons and then there was a date when you were supposed to do that
so all this what you're talking about is platforms configurations beds bunks and all that it's adding the terminology I'm going to ask the city to respond to this but as long as your advertisement say the city code okay states that you can't
have more than eight occupants in this place this vacation rental then you complied with the order is that way you view this m Crawford and it doesn't say that now it
yeah I I think it whether or not you're violating the eight is a different issue right so we would yes we we want all of the listings to reflect eight occupants and I wouldn't have brought up happy Palm St because it doesn't have any
relevance uh but because it was brought up I would just like to say that they have reduced all of their listings to reflect eight occupants it clearly states eight no more than eight everything shows eight and um because they do manage um another of Mr
borrower's properties I reached out to them directly because I had to open again this is irrelevant information um but a case in which they had their listings for his property at 8 and he had a separate listing over eight
so he's not in compliance with the order because he hasn't said in the advertisements that there's a maximum there's your issue right there I I have to object I have to object all this is fact is fact but there's a city ordinance
that says I can't rent to more than eight it doesn't say the city ordinance doesn't say I need to advertise only eight it is lack enforcement it is lack enforcement
please let me finish lack enforcement to say we need a proxy to ensure you are accommodating this city ordinance by showing us your advertising as such because there are ways to ensure that I am not I'm without an
advertisement so you're you're going to find me for something that is not an ordinance to advertise over hang on hang on I'm not going to debate that part with you and I and the city that's not an issue here today but an issue is what the order
said the order was issued on no on on November 16th based upon the November 13th hearing I'm confused the order is to advertise or not to rent to more than eight people the order
says the respondent shall shall take I just read it but I'll this respondent shall take action to ensure that all advertisements and listings pertain to the subject vacation rental property clearly indicate and state that the maximum property occupancy is eight
persons and then it gave you one week to do that but they have no standing to ensure anything about that's where we that's where weart I'm confused that the I confuse you real quick okay that's
what the order says based on what there's no city ordinance that gives them that right to give me that order hang on a second hang on let me say this something and then you can are you can say whatever you want the order was
based upon a hearing that occurred November 13th of last year the order was issued November 16th of last year up until and and I'm bad about counting 30 days but about December 16th you had the
right to appeal okay there was no appeal as far as I know I haven't heard about anything once that appeal was not taken okay that order became final conclusive the law of the land as far as
the whole world's concerned the law about your property is relates is that order so that is the order I understand now okay and that is what you required to do and and that's what I think
there's no debate that you haven't done but you can cure it by doing it still yes I understand does that make sense now it does now the city is asking for a fine to go back to November 21st which is the week after
November 14th the 7day period I guess right yeah yes after yeah 13 is that the city's position that is yes okay now there's a one issue with that
and that we dealt with that before the code that's what and I haven't been emailing or texting or anything up here the code says vacation rental are punished in accordance with section
1-8 1-8 when you go to it it's the it's and the city may want to change this cuz I I'm city of three in other places and I've changed it in my cities because I say the penalty is whatever is allowed by law in the process which you're using
but in this case when you go back to 1-8 it's the $500 period not a per day now you can have come back and have repeated days but right now what's been
proven is that there was a violation and that it's asserted to be a violation you relate back to that penalty till you're $500 again okay so in the context of this code enforcement proceeding under chapter 162
of the florid of statutes in your city code what I'm going to do is find that yes indeed there was a violation beyond the DAT of compliance and that there's a fine of $500 okay and you can bring that back
here here's the deal you can bring that back for day after day after day after day after day and site violations for each day okay and have a $500 a day that way but right now
I think I'm constrained to for this you're alleging that there was a was a violation on that day I agree I don't think it's disputed and I'm going to find $500 a day finding that there was a violation of the order after the date of compliance now if you want to site him
day after day after day that's something I think the city can do and I wouldn't want them to do if I was you okay does that make sense to everybody oh clarification what would a violation be
a violation would not be advertising it not not advertising a violation would be actually housing or renting to people violation in my context in my world in this room and special magistrate is the order which is ad says you better you
have and you didn't appeal it advertise in your advertisements you have to say no more than eight res must clearly indicate and state that the max maimum property occupancy is eight persons that's what your
advertisements have to say and okay so which I'm I'm happy to do anything else between hang on a second anything else about what the city will or I I'm not going to agree to anything because that's not my role but if you want to
talk to the city about well what if I say potentially sleep 16 but you can only have eight how you word that without ending up here again that's between you and the city not between you
and me does that make sense because I'm not the one who brings charges I just sit here and find the facts and find the law and and try to do what the statutes say about the penalty which is what I'm doing today okay but in terms of what the city
will accept without bringing you back for another violation that's between you and the code enforcement State what is it excuse me what is it how what's my recourse I go to their office I see Danielle I see Jose what do
what what's my recourse my recourse is with the law that that determines that judges whether they're uh claiming or finding me the cor thing now I didn't know about a an appeal I just I just don't know I mean I'm an average Joe
running a couple I guess I got to research that more I get these I get some of these pages and they're a little opaque your honor I have to say corrective action says here says reduce guest allowance to eight and this is not her Powerpoint which is
which is new to me and I guess maybe she's quoting some other document but this is what I have reduce guest allowance to eight and do not allow more than eight guests to State at the vacation rental per code that's what it says it doesn't say advertising here that said more than it needed that
actually was an alleged violation again but that's not before me this is October this is October this is dated October so this is not this that was before that was before the November hearing but I think this is the same case as DS 24259
all I'm finding a Massy hearing all I'm finding is that did you comply with the order I entered by the time it was required the answer to that I'm going to find is no okay the remedy I'm going to
find is a $500 Vine okay what works between you and the it it is between you and the city what complies with this order and and because you didn't appeal to a Circuit Judge to tell me I was
wrong can can you refer to and hang on what and my the orders I enter say this order may be appealed to the Circuit Court than 30 days of execution at which time it should be rendered by
filing of the in the office of the city code enforcement clerk that was done so on November 16th the order was rendered and you had 30 days to appeal and the order told you that you didn't have to research it or
anything I put it in my orders Okay so there you go but my finding today and you can talk to the staff about what precise language will keep you out of this chamber again okay but that's not
my call but what I'm going to find is as of the date of comp of of ordered compliance compliance was not obtained and I'm going to find have a fine of
$500 in accordance with the city code and whether we end up here again next month for one day two days three days four days of violation that's not my call okay so let me just ask your honor for uh just so I understand this so
there was a there's a city code saying occupancy lesson 8 this this there was a hearing that he's in violation because there were some reviews that said hey there's been more than eight to be the bottom line cuz it has these listings that I can say Well that's ambiguous but
there were at least one that said you were in violation so the city then said okay we have an order to advertise it differently I didn't appeal that in my opinion now I would say that's not really what the city code says the code says I can't rent to people I can't have
more than eight bodies staying there under a rental contract agreement which is ratified by Airbnb right so I could have but I can't now say I object to that order to have me advertise differently say you so but right right
right now you your honor are saying hey I have an order that says I think I'm using the term right you needed to change your advertising you didn't I'm finding a 500 I think we're in agreement to that point right I'm not that's what I just did as yes sir sir yes sir right I'm just saying I'm just trying to
question now because what you just said again and again and again now until that's done and I'm happy to do it but I'm just trying to get my head around I'm I'm not a legal person with laws and whatever and I'm trying to understand
them um when that is done and I advertise then does this order become in compliance and it goes away it goes away I'm just confused they made an order for
me to I suggest you talk to the city but if you comp if you comply with the order you're in compliance you can come in violation the next day so you have to continue compliance but yes once
you once you put the right verbiage in the advertisements you will be in compliance with that order now the city can charge you later on if they want with if and they find that you've had 9 10 16 20 people in the house that's
another case another time another another case not 24259 it' be a new case but right now this case says I need to resolve it by by changing the advertisement my view M Crawford do you agree yes correct and then I think maybe
for like clarification purposes like if if it were to stay at eight occupants for like 5 years and then you brought it back to 16 that would be a new case with it would be a repeat violation it right I get it okay and and my guess is and I don't mean to this is
Way Beyond scope of this hearing but my guess is if the city could have it would have the code read that these were daily violations and not a one-time citation violation but that's
something to maybe address later on so to that point not to get too into the minua because I appreciate your time or what have you but um let's say they say it's repeated violation like every day mhm I guess my question is if that were to
be the case it'd be say where's your proof well that's that's Way Beyond But but so that would be I would take with them and I would say if they take take that issue I would I would sit here and hear what the proof was and what you said the proof wasn't and make a decision but that's not my role today
because right I'm just trying to figure out here and I'm just appreciate your time because $500 is not IM material in in my world and I'm just trying to figure out or $150 day or whatever I I can't remember exactly what they're saying 200 you know if there's one
violation if there's one violation of8 people in whatever you'd call it December of 2024 and they say okay well from November such and such up to here every day or in viol violation not this act I'm saying advertising but I'm just
saying of what being in exess being having too many people be you're right would it be would it be every day would it be the one violation of the person staying there a week or the family charging for each day for each day in violation yeah yeah abolutely and then and then the next familyes come and
there's seven people and six people and eight people would they charge me then cuz our hearing would have been a month I'm going to be I mean it's a lot of money your honor I can tell you each day that the city believes that there's over eight occupants and that
facility they could charge you for that day's violation believes and if and if family of nine or 16 or 20 stayed for 20 days that could be 20 violations depending upon how the city charged it agree uh understood I'm just I'm just
trying to figure out I really have trouble with the term used that the city believes well don't they have to prove it when I City asserts strike of believes and and use the word asserts okay okay and then we would have to discuss whether they can time I said believes I said they'd have
to bring it here and then you decide based on the case and the evidence okay Sears alleges uh whatever you want to use yeah searchs is a very good term I get it they're saying we're we we we we we assert this is the case and then I would have counter evidence
that's right what have you if not if at all that's what this proceeding and the the one back in November was all about right yeah I mean this you're on I appreciate the patience cuz I don't quite understand or the or the I probably should have had a whatever you call it a um an appeal because I didn't
quite know what or I should have just I I I really wasn't I'm going to cut this off because you're going Way Beyond the scope of the Shing I just recommend as I would with any respondant that you work with the city and then if you came to an impass and you get charged you end up
here but working with the city the goal of the city of Coca Beach as I understand it like every city and county I'm familiar with in the code enforcement process is compliance it's not to bring people to a hearing and F them it's compliance so that the the way
you get compliance is talking to the city does that make sense I think so I mean I and and honestly but Danielle should I be calling you I'm happy to because some of the stuff quite frankly is was I just didn't understand that
that was just the advertisement like after maybe it's just my paperwork or um well I'm what I'm going to do I guess I'd assume because it was the 16 I said the 16 wasn't but if if I should have said is it is are we still out of compant I didn't realize I'd come here
with the prospect of getting hit with thousands and thousands I just didn't know before what I'm going to do because this is a public hearing and it's being recorded and everything I'm going to journ the hearing so that that can stop and the things that you're saying to yourself
Danielle can be done uh bilaterally instead of to the whole world okay yeah okay all right I'm aduring the hearing now