The City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on Aug. 27 found that a May 9–18 stay at Unit 405, 692 Bayway Boulevard, constituted an impermissible short‑term rental under the property’s development approvals and city code.
City attorneys and code staff presented documents showing a 2002 development order approving the building for attached-dwelling residential use — not “resort attached dwelling” or transient lodging. Assistant City Attorney Jared Simpson told the board that the 2002 development order and related staff records showed the developer obtained reduced setbacks and other concessions in exchange for assuring the city the units would be owner‑occupied, and that no valid change‑of‑use application was ever approved to permit short‑term rentals.
The city’s code compliance manager, Rebecca Mulder, said staff had received a sworn affidavit and complaints alleging a nine‑day stay in May and asked the board to find a violation. Mulder recommended a one‑time fine equivalent to $150 per day for the documented nine‑day stay but said the department had not found continuing online listings.
Resident Penny LeGrande Prawl testified that owners and residents long believed the condominium operated with seven‑day minimums and that the association’s documents state a seven‑day rule; she and other residents said they had repeatedly asked the city to enforce the one‑hundred‑percent vote requirement that would be necessary to change the private documents. The property owner, Melanie McNamara of Rash Holdings LLC, denied the city’s claims and said owners had relied on past marketing and association documents showing shorter minimum terms when they bought.
The board first voted to find a violation based on the May booking. During deliberations several members noted a complicated factual and legal history: the property sits in the tourist district (where short‑term rentals may be permitted under different approvals), but the recorded development order for the building authorized residential attached dwellings only. Simpson told the board that state law defines transient lodging as rentals for less than 30 days, a statutory line the city uses in its short‑term rental enforcement.
After debate, a board member moved that no fine be imposed given the history and confusion but that the condominium association and owners must cease and desist any short‑term rentals unless they obtain a formal change of use through the city’s Community Development process. The motion passed. The board recorded that repeat violations could expose owners to fines under the city code and that the change‑of‑use route (to be pursued through the planning/Community Development process) is the city’s avenue for legal short‑term rental use on the property.
The board’s action was limited to the evidence about the May 9–18 stay; it did not resolve longer historical disputes over how the property was marketed or about private association bylaws. City staff said they have adjusted automated notices to clarify the distinction between zoning/district rules and development‑order approvals.
The board’s order: a finding of violation for the May booking; no monetary fine was imposed for that booking; the condominium must cease short‑term rentals unless and until a lawful change of use is completed through city processes. The board retained authority to impose fines if the violation is repeated.