Laserfiche WebLink
Page 8 --June 10, 2004 <br /> <br /> Prior to buying the property, Rollison determined under the condominium <br />~overnina documents that weekly rentals were allowed. The previous owner <br />had engaged in short-term rentals, and Rollison had obtained a rental history <br />for the unit. Finally, Rollison contacted the city attorney, who stated the prop- <br />erty could be used for short-term rentals as long as it was not rented for more <br />than 26 weeks per year, and she obtained a non-transient occupational license <br />from the city. <br /> Rollison purchased the property, obtained the required license, and rented <br />the property for approximately 16 weeks per year. <br /> In 1998, the city adopted land development regulations that. disallowed <br />short-term rentals. It then threatened to fine Rollison if she continued to rent <br />her property. <br /> Rollison sued, and the court ruled in the city's favor. <br /> Rollison appealed, arguing the city had historically included a 50 percent <br />residency rule in its definition of what constituted transient housing and that <br />she was renting her property within the limits of the old code. <br />DECISION: Reversed, <br /> Rollison established her short-term rentals constituted a lawful noncon- <br />forming use. Moreover, her use was "grandfathered in," because her use ex- <br />isted lawfully before the current restrictions on short-term rentals took effect. <br /> Rollison established this because she was actively engaged in short-term <br />rentals prior to the 1998 adoption of land dex(elopment regulations, her rentals <br />complied with the 50 percent rule because she rented the unit for less than 26 <br />weeks per year, and she obtained the non-transient occupational license re- <br />quired at that time. <br /> Under the city code, the definition of "transient housing" stated transient <br />housing was housing "principally available to short-term visitors for less than <br /> <br />28 days." Consequently, if the rental <br />use was less than 50 percent of the <br />year, the condominium unit could <br />not be "principally available to short- <br />term rentals" and did not constitute <br />"transient housing." Thus, Rotlison <br />had the correct permit and had been <br />within the limits of the old code. <br /> <br />see also: ColemaJ~ v. City of Key <br />West, 807 So.2d 84 (2001). <br /> <br />see also: Palo~m~bis ;: Ci~ of Miami <br />Beach, 848 So.2d 1153 (2003). <br /> <br />2004 Quiman PuUlisnin9 Group. AW reDroduction is prohibited, For more inlormation please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />102 <br /> <br /> <br />