Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/2011

Home

June 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 12 Zoning Bulletin (the "City"). The Owners purchased their properties in the City "with the intent to use them as short-term rentals for a portion of each year in order to offset their purchase costs." At the time the Owners pur- chased their properties, the City's 1986 Growth Management Ordi- nance ("GMO") was in effect, as part of the City's Land Development Regulations ("LDRs"). The GMO defined "transient housing" as: "commercially operated housing, principally available to short-term visitors ..." (the "Former Transient Definition"). The City eventually revised its ordinances, modifying the definition of "transient housing" to remove the "principally available" language. The Owners then asked the City to have their short-term rental use deemed a "grandfathered in," lawful nonconforming use. The City denied that request. The Owners then filed the instant suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court issued judgment denying the Owners' claims against the City. The Owners appealed. DECISION: Reversed, and matter remanded. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, held that the Owners' use of their respective properties for short-term rental was a lawful nonconforming use that was "grandfathered." In so holding, the court found that some property owners and developers had interpreted the Former Transient Definition (which contained the "principally available" language) to mean that an owner could rent his or her residential dwelling for less than half the year without the dwelling losing its residential status (the "50% rule"), and therefore without the need for a City -issued transient license. Under that interpretation, the Owners involved in this case believed that their properties were nontransient because they were used for short-term rentals for less than half of any given year. Un- der that belief, the Owners had secured necessary nontransient oc- cupational licenses. Because that interpretation of the ordinance went "unchallenged by the City," the court found that the Owners' use of their properties for short-term rentals complied with the For- mer Transient Definition —and thus was now a lawful nonconform- ing use given that: (1) the Owners had engaged in short-term rent- al of their units prior to the change in the definition of "transient housing"; (2) the Owners complied with the 50% rule; and (3) the Owners had obtained nontransient occupational licenses. See also: Rollison v. City Of Key West, 875 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2004). 6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters