|
Town officials consider regulations for rentals
By BOB MACPHERSON
| Article published on Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2007 |
|
 |
REDINGTON BEACH – The issue of revolving-door rentals in single-family residential districts continues to concern Redington Beach residents and officials.
Prohibition of such uses has been on the town’s books for sometime but has been largely ignored.
Resident Ruth Davies told the commission Sept. 18 that her neighborhood is plagued by short-term rentals.
“They are there for a week, three days, two days,” Davies said. “They are there to party and do they party. The police have been called several times. It’s important to put some teeth into this. I hope you can stop it. It has been going on in my neighborhood for three years.”
The issue became messy a few years ago when a former town clerk allegedly told an applicant who was seeking a construction permit to build a single-family home in a single family residential district, that it was the town’s policy to allow short-term rentals. Subsequently, the applicant was made aware of the town’s short-term use prohibition and was upset over the conflicting information he received from the town.
Consequently, former town attorney Dominic Amadio in a June 30, 2005, letter recommended that the town cite anyone in a single-family residential district who rents for less than 181 days.
Amadio explained that renting a property for less than 181 days requires property owners to pay a 4 percent tourist development tax to the county and a 7 percent sales tax to the state.
Thus, short-term rentals would constitute a tourist use that is not allowed within single-family residential districts. Furthermore, if short term rentals are receiving homestead exemption, Amadio said the town clerk should notify the Pinellas County Property Appraiser’s Office of the alleged violation.
Commissioner Deborah Bradbeer, a long time proponent of effective short-term rental rules, said a new ordinance with teeth was needed.
“The town should have all its bases covered,” she said. Bradbeer said she would like to see what other towns are doing and how their ordinances have stood up in court.
The town had its attorney draft what Mayor Nick Simons described as a sample ordinance. The sample ordinance will be beefed up with the outcome of a pending workshop dealing with the problem.
Fence height debated
The town’s building regulations provide that on waterfront or gulf-front property, rear yards, fences, walls or hedges cannot exceed 3 feet in height anywhere within 25 feet of the waterfront property line.
Fences can be higher beyond the 25-foot setback, for example along the house itself. Some waterfront home owners have complained about the 3-foot restriction and have asked the town to explain the rationale for the regulation.
Town Planning Board Chairman Rob Epstein said such explanations are never consistent, frustrating homeowners.
Epstein said the planning board felt it important to provide the commission a consistent way to interpret the ordinance.
The board recommended that the rationale for the height restriction be that a 3-foot fence provides a “wide angle visibility” for neighborhood residents.
Epstein said the Planning Board saw no other reason for the 3-foot limitation. The issue was not resolved.
|
Article published on Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2007
Copyright © Tampa Bay Newspapers: All rights reserved. |
