Council denies appeal for short‑term rental permits at 210 E. Schubert after renewal lapses
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
The council denied an appeal from the owners of 210 East Schubert Street seeking reinstatement of two short‑term rental permits that city records show had expired; staff cited missed inspection scheduling and failure to complete renewal steps within the renewal window.
Fredericksburg City Council denied an appeal from property owners Philip and Jennifer Shula seeking reinstatement of two short‑term rental (STR) permits for 210 East Schubert Street.
The applicants told council they had operated both units as STRs since acquiring the duplex in 2018 and said they attempted to renew the permits after being notified the permits had expired. The owners described difficulties navigating a new permitting portal (MGO Connect), an incorrect email address on file that they said prevented receipt of renewal notices, and personal health issues that limited the owners’ ability to manage the renewal process.
City staff and the STR coordinator provided a procedural timeline in the record: the STR permits adopted under the city’s 2018 ordinance expired on September 30, 2024; a renewal reminder was sent November 1; the applicants submitted an incomplete renewal for Unit A on November 5 but did not pay the renewal fee or schedule the required inspection in a timely manner; staff closed the pending application after no inspection was scheduled and because the required fee was not paid within the renewal window. Unit B did not have a pending renewal application. Staff told council the applicants failed to complete required inspection scheduling and submission steps within the renewal period, which is the basis for denying reactivation of the nonconforming status.
Applicants said they paid outstanding fees once they discovered the lapse and that they have remained current on hotel occupancy taxes while the STRs continued to operate. Council members noted repeated similar appeals and said the city had allowed a reasonable transition time after ordinance changes but that year‑plus elapsed since expiration and required steps were not completed. The council denied the appeal without further action; the applicants were informed they may reapply under current ordinance procedures if they wish to pursue new permits.
