[Music] [Music] Let's go ahead and all. So if you're a member of the you're a respondent
and uh can testify then please take your name Francis Danielle Crawford. [Music]
Yes. So you haven't responded and you've not been here before. I have not. Let me just tell you briefly what the process is. Obviously these are hearings. We're open. Oh, thank you. We're open to the public.
We're in the sunshine. Uh it's not a public hearing. So if there was somebody from the public who wanted to speak, they wouldn't be allowed to speak unless the city called them as a witness or a respondent called them as a witness. Uh the way this proceedings work is the city will make its case, present his
evidence, and then during after that's done or after the testimony is done, a respondent, since you're the only one here, would have the right to to cross-examine the witnesses. Okay. After the city's through and all the cross-examination and presentation of
evidence is done, then it's your turn and you come to the podium and you present your evidence. Just like this, you had the right to cross-examine the city, the city has the right to cross-examine you. Okay. At the conclusion of all the evidence being
entered entered, I'll make findings effect and enter an order uh one way or the other. And within about by Monday or Tuesday of next week, an
order in written form will be issued and distributed. and that will implement what was orally issued as an order today. And that's the way it works pretty simply. Okay. All right. Um I have a couple of minutes. So
May 14th and July 9th minutes for the proceedings on those dates. There was no June meeting. That's why June isn't in there. And I have reviewed the minutes and signed them, approved them and and uh so that's done. makes the attorney
general happy because that's good to say we have to have minutes. Um, and are there any changes to the agenda, Miss Crawford? Uh, yes. Several of the cases have come into compliance. Great. Okay. Um, so we will not be presenting
uh 24-282, [Music] 24-370, and 25-25. Okay. So, the first case we'll hear then is case number 25-99. And the respondent
[Music] is um James Nance, the property owner. Yes. And I forgot you're you're not you're not James Nance. So, okay. Um I'm going
to call for James Nance once. I'm going to call for James Nance twice. I think we've I just walked through the lobby. I didn't see anybody waiting there. Is there is there anybody in the lobby that would appear to be potentially James Nance?
We're calling the halls right now. [Music] No sir. Mr. Palms has called the halls and there's no James Nets present. So you may proceed.
All right. I would like to enter the PowerPoint um into evidence. Okay. Obviously, there's no objection, so it's admitted. Um so, this case is 25-9. Respondent is James Nance of uh property
address 54 Colonial Drive. Here is an aerial view of the property. Um, on May 2nd, 2025, a notice of violation was sent to the respondent for section 22-3.5, maintenance of abuing the public ride ofway. Section 10-22, enumerated
conditions prohibited. Section 15-23, new uh nuisances, designated personal property under certain conditions, and section 10-5, accumulation and disposal. These violations were in reference to trash and debris on the property, the
motor vehicles on the sidewalk, and the motor vehicles without valid tags or registration. Here are some images of the vehicles over the sidewalk. Um, a vehicle without valid
registration. Uh, it expired in 24 and this was taken April 7th, 2025. Uh, another vehicle missing uh, valid registration. um a door hanger was left at the
property um before a case was opened and this was on April 7th. Um I returned on April 17th and again this is the the state of the property. The vehicles um including the motorboats remained um over the sidewalk.
And then here are just closer looks. Here's a side profile of the the boats hanging over the sidewalk. And this remained on July 22nd. [Music] Um, and then I believe this was one of
their solutions was to put a bright yellow rag over uh one of the boats so that people wouldn't walk into it. Again, no valid registration. Um, a notice of violation was sent uh as
well as a notice of hearing. The notice of hearing was posted to the door on July 22nd, 2025. [Music] And I still have not heard from the respondent and the property remains in non-compliance.
[Music] Okay. Is there anything further that the city wants to introduce? No. Okay. Well, I'll I'll obviously we don't have opposition today and and I'll enter the
order. I just had I I did study the code. And I thank you for sending the packet a little part of the packet early because there's one I have no problem with any of it except the overall concept of
section 22-3.5 which is maintenance of rightway. Okay. I'm going to construe this to be relating to the encroachment on the rightway. Yes. the way that code is written. And I've and I don't mean to say, oh, I've
been through all this millions of times, but I have in this case because I've been involved in similar codes since 1985 where a city or a county attempts to place the burden of a of maintaining
the road on the abuing property owners. Okay. When I say maintaining, I mean making sure there's no trash debris and all that kind of stuff. That may not be
the property owner has has done that. You know, it may be litter bugs. Uh it may be cracks, it may be holes, it may be washouts, it may be anything. But the way that code's written is it puts it attempts to put a duty on but abudding
property owners to maintain city and sometimes county property and a you I don't think cities and counties want to do that because you don't want pe people to think or you don't want to set up the principle that
there's some control that the buddy and the property owner has over the rideway. That's a bad principle to establish. Okay. So, you might want to look at that code. But in terms of the encroachment, and that's the way I'm going to read that. It's clearly it's cro it's in
there's encroachment with the the boat and other stuff. Uh so, I'll read it that way. So, I'm going to find that the respondent is in violation of all those codes. What is the proposed penalty? [Music] Um, based on the testimony and evidence
submitted at the hearing, uh, we respectfully request the magistrate find the respondent in violation of the notice of violation and give the respondent until August 20th, 2025 to bring the property into compliance. If
compliance is not obtained uh by that date, a fine be imposed starting on August 21st, 2025 in the amount of $100 for the first day and $150 for each day thereafter until compliance is confirmed.
Okay. So, in case number 20, is there anything further? I'm sorry. No. is case number 25-99. I'm going to find that the respondent is in violation of section 22-3.5 and failing in encroaching upon the
rightway and thereby why not maintaining the rightway in a a manner which they have a duty to do. uh and um that a violation has also occurred relative to section 10-22
prohibiting nuisances and section 15-23-1 that also relates to nuisances and section 10-5 accumulation of disposal of materials which is basically another
nuisance provision and uh the fine will be as proposed Um, if the respondent does not attain compliance by August 20th, then there'll be a fine of $100 for the first day and $150 for each subsequent day of
violation until the all the the code provisions have been put into compliance. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. All right. The next case is case number 25-157
and the respondent is Francis Dugen. And you are present. Yes, he is. And I'm code officer Brook Oxreer. Uh respondent is Francis Dugen at 79 South Bard Avenue, Cocoa Beach,
aerial view from property appraiser. On June 10th, a courtesy email was sent to the property owner explaining the violations. Specific misleading advertisement prohibited and maximum occupancy. There are four separate units, all individually licensed and registered, but currently being
advertised together as one listing suggesting it is one vacation rental and exceeding the maximum occupancy permitted. On June 23rd, a courtesy letter was sent to the property owner. On July 11th, a notice of violation was
sent. In July 18th, the owner requested this case be brought to the special special magistrate. And so the uh notice of hearing was posted on July 21st. This is a listing that's advertising for all four units showing a maximum
occupancy of 16 plus guests. Um here's another one advertising all four units on one with 16 plus guests as well. And another one on Verbbo. This one, I believe, says 20 for the guests.
And this listing is for two of the units with a maximum occupancy of 10 guests. Another one for two of the units with an occupancy of 10. Another one with two of the units being advertised. And
all right, Mr. Duncan, do you have any cross-examination you'd like to Yeah. Well, the first thing some of those listings Oh, you you just want to present then present. Okay, go ahead. The first thing I would say, some of those listings are duplicates. Um,
they're screenshots of the same listings, maybe at different times. Um, but good morning, special magistrate. My name is Francis Stugen, and I am the owner of 79 South Bard Avenue. I operate four individually licensed and registered two-bedroom vacation rental
units at this property. Each unit complies with the maximum occupancy allowed by city code. I even limit occupancy to five guests per unit, which is lower than the legal maximum. Since purchasing this property, I've invested significant time, money, and
personal effort to transform it from a rundown building, one that former police told me they frequently received calls about into one of the most highly rated vacation rentals in Cocoa Beach. Today, the property is clean, safe, and welcoming. And the it is in the top 10% of all Airbnb listings worldwide, a
guest favorite, and I maintain superhost status. Reviews from guests consistently highlight cleanliness, accuracy, and professionalism. The property is zoned multi multi-use commercial located 2-minute walk down the road. We are directly next to city
hall, the fire department, and a storage facility. It is not in a quiet low density residential area. I've also installed noise monitoring devices to ensure guests never exceed acceptable noise levels, showing my commitment to protecting the peace and safety of the neighborhood and the city. Some of my
listings allow guests to reserve more than one unit together. This is done solely for guest convenience to simplify booking for larger families or groups who want to stay close to each other. It does not create any life safety issue. The city's own ordinance in chapter 26.5
begins by stating that it is enacted in quote the interest of the health, peace, safety, and general welfare end quote. Offering a combined licensing for multiple licensed units fully within their occupancy limits serve that goal, not the opposite. These listings clearly
state the number of units included, show separate entrances and amenities, and never exceed the perunit occupancy limits in each registration. Nowhere in the ordinance does it prohibit advertising multiple registered units in a single listing. In fact, the city has a previous previously
acknowledged similar combined unit advertising as compliant as shown in email correspondence between city staff and another license host. I also included examples from other cities that show combined unit advertising is an accepted industry practice. I look forward to showing that my operations
are fully compliant with both this letter and spirit of the code and I respectfully ask the notice of violation be dismissed and I have a packet if I can I was going to ask did you want to introduce the PowerPoint also? Uh yes, please. Okay. You have a copy?
It was a part of the other Oh, it was part of the other one. [Music] I was looking at the screen. [Music]
There you go. You you obviously you just saw the PowerPoint. Do you have any objection to it being introduced in the evidence? Outside of some of those listings are duplicates. I'm not I'm not
the twice on any platform. Okay. So, you're that's your testimony to clarify what was introduced then. Correct. Okay. It's misleading because it's the same street. Okay.
[Music] Okay. And the city have any objection to this packet being introduced? Okay. Do you want me to give you a run through? Yeah, that would that'd be good. then the city can cross-examine if they desire to.
Okay, so page three is just kind of a summary um what I already went over. I have four vacation rental licenses and four BTRs for the property. Um listing screenshots clearly show the number of separate units included in the booking, so it is not misleading. In fact, we've
gotten five stars on accuracy for the listing. Um, if you go to page four, it kind of just highlights in the code where it says, uh, a total of eight occupants per vacation rental. Again, I have four vacation rentals and all the
licenses are included in that packet as well. Um, and I never exceed that occupancy set on each respected vacation rental. The licenses are included from page five. The BTRs are from page five to page
eight. The vacation rental certificate, um, which was newly introduced because I'm in multi-use zoning, but I was fully compliant with that. That's from page 9 to page 12. um an email
on page 13 showing that the city said that this is fine to another host um about putting two units together on April 21st, 2025. [Music] Page 15, you can see my listings where
it clearly states right in the header, two apartments or four units or two units. page 16, an example from Fort Lauderdale, an example from Fort Myers Beach, an example from Miami Beach showing two units, two separate units, two units, um, showing that this is, you
know, standard across this industry. And then page 17 is just showing some of my reviews, including when I hosted the the Space Coast Recovery, which is a nonprofit drug and alcohol treatment organization, and also highlighting um that this is in top 10% due to a lot of
hard work transforming this property. also highlighting that accuracy has gotten a perfect five-star rating. Um, so I don't believe people that are booking the property are being misled in any way. [Music] Do
you have an extra copy? [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] Okay. Does the city have any cross-examination? [Music] Yes. [Music] Um, so the
you have any questions of him? No. No. Okay. Are you through? Do you have anything else? Uh, do are you through, sir? Yes. Okay. And this is your rebuttal. Okay. Okay. So the the violation for the misleading advertisement is specifically for
the rental being the it's being advertised as one rental allowing more than the maximum occupancy as the listing show the 16 plus 20 or 10. And I would like to clarify the email that was sent in April. I currently do
have a case with that property now. I when I first started I did not know that that was a violation and I have informed them since that they cannot do that as well. [Music] So the city's point is that somebody from that this advertisement right that
says four cuz this is the one we're talking about. Yes. Where it says four units eight bedrooms sleeps 20. Is misleading that that's one rental? Yes.
[Music] Can I real quick? Um, what's the misleading portion of it is where it says sleeps 20 or sleeps 16 or sleeps 30 or however it may be. That's misleading stating that I have
this big even though I have four units, even though you know it's the the the code says eight, I'm this property is is listed as sleeping more than what is allowed by code. That's what's misleading. If the co if the if the
advertisement said each unit sleeps eight and it doesn't have anything above that, that wouldn't be misleading because that's what the code allows. Okay. [Music] [Music]
So, is there any evidence that section 26.5-53 is being violated? [Music] that there's actually being more
than two occupants per bedroom plus two occupants. [Music] A1 says two occ two occ two occupants per bedroom plus two occupants. Yes. So
is that intended to be six occupants? Yes. I believe his units are all two bedrooms. So they would each have a maximum of six. [Music] I mean that makes So you really can have six occupants in a two-bedroom. Correct. Okay. Or a total of eight occupants
per rental. A lesser. Okay. So if the listing was say like a single family residence as it's advertised as one rental they could book on the act maximum could only be eight even if he included all four rooms.
Well I got you but but each of these units is allowed to have how many? Six on the registration. Well wait hang on hang on you can cross examine in just a second. So the city's position is each of those four units can have a maximum of six people per unit.
Correct. Okay. So actually to some extent I mean I'm not getting into the misleading part yet but if you just took the total actually 20 is not true. It's 24.
Yes. Okay. So if I define that he's misleading, he's misleading by less than he could might have missed. Right. But you there's there's no evidence that he's actually renting in excess of those
prescribed amounts. Right. Correct. I mean, I haven't seen any. Yeah, that that would be correct. Okay. [Music] and 26.5-58 that relates to se to chapter 26
not chapter 13. So chapter so the section 13.1-4 violation stands on its own. Yes. [Music]
[Music] [Music]
Okay. Does the city have anything further? No. Okay. Mr. Doug, do you have anything for you? You had a question or you wanted to make sir revital? Yeah. Okay. So, I just want to mention when the city issued me their vacation rental
registration, my as in the packet, it shows I'm allowed eight people. I believe that was a typo. Besides the fact, as I already mentioned, I keep all my units to a maximum of five, which is below the city code of six. Um, I don't
Well, quite frankly, the city's conceded that there's no evidence that you're violating the the numerical limitation of of occupants in these rentals. So, I think the sole issue now is misleading advertisement. That's the way I'm
looking at it. Mhm. So if you should really address your point to your your your and I I'll be I'll be upfront with you, okay? Because cuz we need to discuss this. The way I'm
reading everything, the advertisements, [Music] they're at least ambiguous. But if they're ambiguous, they're ambiguous to the point of being misleading. And the reason I'll I'll tell you I'm concluding
that is because the advertisements, these are your Shark Tank apartments, right? This is what we're talking about. Okay. On page 15, it says entire rental unit. And you're talking s You may just need to change the language. And I think
that's what that that's what misleading means is the language that you're using is not appropriate. Okay? You may just need to change language. And I'm not your attorney. I'm not going to tell you what this to do. The city can work things out with you. But in your the
advertise what you've admitted into evidence says entire rental unit in Cocoa Beach unit, 10 guests, four bedrooms, five beds, two baths. Okay. And there's other places. I won't go
through them, but it's it indicates and the the city's evidence, too. This this the listing that you you said was redundant. I know you say there's two in there, but it doesn't really matter. If any of these were done, is this one still online?
Correct. Okay. Well, then the city's right because it's only 8bedroom, but it's true. DT is only 8bedroom. That indicates infers leads one to believe okay that there's
an eightbedroom unit. Has there been a case of anyone being misled? Because I just showed you the reviews. That's that that's not that's beside the point. It's whether the advertisement is misleading. And it also says directly in the in the header, two apartments, four units, two units
above that. The what you're seeing is what Airbnb pushes out. That's not an edible field. This right here is not inedible. The top is where it says four units, but I'm already advertising it as four apartment or two units. Four apartments. Four units.
Well, DT's only eightbedroom, sleeps 20. That's not editable. No, that is that is edible. But that's what's misleading. I read it. I mean, I'm I'm a reasonably intelligent person. I think there's a unit. It's the only one and it sleeps 20.
But it says four units as well, right? But that's why ambiguity can be misleading. You see? Yeah. But I don't What does that mean? I just read the first part. Oh, that's the only It's the only eight bedroom and it sleeps 20. Okay. I might stop there. I'd be happy.
And a lot of a lot of people who read advertisements, such as me, because I hate advertisements, okay? I I don't read the whole thing. I might read one gallon milk, $2.69.
Then my wife will figure out that it's chocolate milk, you know. But I just looked at the the first part and I wasn't I wasn't misled. But this is this is misleading. This is ambi that the the
advertisement I just referred to about the milk was not ambiguous. This is ambiguous. And when it's ambiguous, then it can mislead someone. And that's what the code's talking about. So you're you're narrowed we're narrowed down to
that one violation. And that violation, I believe, can be cured just by working with the city to modify the language to make it specifically say what the code allows, which the city's not alleging that you're violating now.
Yeah. The city's not my point. I'm I'm legally allowed to have, as we already went over, 24 people in the four units. I don't think this the city's not debating that right now. It's just spelling it out exactly what the code allows and what you're renting.
So, if I just had four units and left out and I'm not going to tell you. I I can't I'm telling you it's misleading in my judgment and I'm letting you tell tell me why I'm wrong, which is I've been wrong before. So, convince me that I'm wrong. I don't think I am.
Mhm. Yeah. And I think this isn't should be an easy resolution between you and the city sitting down and saying, "Let's see what this I assume the city would work with work with. They're saying yes." The city is saying yes. They'll work with you to
get the ad to say specifically what the code allows. Okay. I mean the problem is beyond I I believe having worked with cities for a long time and I can't say about the specific case but sometimes one case is a case
that demonstrates a a broader problem. Okay? Because if I was a person who was really on the city's case about enforcing the vacation rentals,
I could find this on the web. Be misled. Okay? Or misunderstand it. I'm misunderstanding it if I'm not a customer. If I am a customer, I'm being misled. You see the point? I'm just But but hang on. And then I go to the city and I say, "See what you're
allowing?" And they said, "No, we're not allowing it." It says so right here. You see where are you being misled? Because it's the only eightbedroom that sleeps 20 and that's that's not true. You have four units.
Okay. So, if I took out if it's Well, I don't know. I'm sure you can work it out with the city. Well, I'm just trying to find out what else to make it clear that what you're doing is not violating the other provisions of the code. You see what they want me to do is completely
take down the listing if I'm not misunderstanding. I don't think that's true. I don't think that that's what I was given. Take down the listing as it is misleading. Am I right, Miss M. Crawford? You know, I'm sorry, Miss
I'm Mr. Oxer. Yes. Not necessarily the ad completely, but change it to where it reflects just changing the title. Um, well, I think let me butt in here. Y'all
need There's a lot of text there that needs to be massaged. We can we can I can speak with him afterwards about this and get everything settled. It's It's not the the ad does the ads don't need to be removed. The ads just need to be changed. And the
wording and how many guests are allowed per unit is is I mean when you go with when you add it all up and you say, "Oh, I have 32 houses and they can hold 32." I got it. Whatever. Whatever. So, we can work but we can work with you on that. That's not the city's saying remove the misleading
ad. They don't care if you put a non-misleading ad up. They So, and I think you can all can work it out as to what the the language is. That make sense? Yes. Okay. Okay. That being said, how
much time do we need to to take care of this so that before there's an actual f I'm going to find right now, unless the city wants to dismiss the other charges and just leave section 13.1-4
because I'm going to find there's no violation of the others unless you unless you dismiss them. Yes. The city will remove uh 26.5-53 maximum occupancy based on uh site capacity and we will uh keep the section
13.1-4. So the violations of chapter 26 have been dismissed. We're just talking about 13.1-4 and I'm going to find that that is a violation. There has been a violation of that and now we need to figure out how much time
we need and what fine there will be if it's not a successful effort to have a non-misleading advertisement and I would like to uh ask sure go ahead to respond how much time do you believe that it would take to have your ads
changed worked with us to have your brought into compliance I say a week a week okay we will uh give him we'd like to give at least two weeks two weeks they come into compliance starting today and then if non-compliance we will discuss at at a Massie hearing the
fines. You don't want to have a fine commence on the 28th. No, we'll we'll discuss at the Massie hearing. Okay. So, I'm going to find I'm going to note that the city has
dismissed the alleged violations of section 26-.5-53 and 26.5-58 has dismissed those two uh allegations. And I'm going to find that there has
been a violation of section 13.1-4 and that the respondent has until August 27th, 2025. And should the U violation not be remedied by that date, a Massie hearing
will be held shortly thereafter, probably September September around September 10th. This okay, you'll be you'll be noticed if that's the case. And a massy hearing will be held to determine whether or not
the violation was not cured and if it was not what daily fine would be imposed and let me say that what the city is doing is really saying they want to work
with you. I hope you you understand all that. Okay. So that'll be my order on this case. All right. Is there any further matter to come before the special magistrate today? The city has nothing further. All right.
Thank you very much. [Music]