Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate takes Bayside Shops short‑term rental motion under advisement; declines constitutional challenge
Summary
A motion to dismiss a short‑term rental enforcement action against Bayside Shops LLC was argued Monday and taken under advisement by the presiding special magistrate, who ruled the city ordinance is not facially unconstitutional but reserved final disposition.
A special magistrate hearing resumed with Thomas A. Thanos presiding on the City of St. Pete Beach’s enforcement case against Bayside Shops LLC (5501 Gulf Boulevard). The respondent’s attorney moved to dismiss on the grounds that the city’s short‑term rental enforcement seeks penalties for conduct that was not “irreparable or irreversible” as required for an accelerated hearing under Chapter 162 and the city code; the magistrate took the motion under advisement and set the case for further consideration.
Attorney Jim Denhart for Bayside Shops argued the code’s use of the terms “irreparable” and “irreversible” is vague and that the city had not provided the required notice and an opportunity to cure before pursuing the accelerated process. Denhart said the advertised short‑term rentals had been stopped the day after the notice and that the property owner did not have prior knowledge of the rentals.
City counsel and code enforcement staff argued that short‑term rental violations are transitory, the city treats them as serious public‑welfare‑adjacent matters and that prior magistrate rulings established a practice of treating such cases under the irreparable/irreversible standard. The city said it has evidence of multiple short‑term rental occurrences (the record lists 33 instances in the packet) and sought a remedy that could include fines for those past incidents.
The magistrate ruled orally that the constitutional vagueness challenge failed and stated she did not find the instant matter to be an irreparable/irreversible case on the record before her; however, she also said the case record contains evidence of short‑term rental transactions and took the matter and the motion to dismiss under advisement. She instructed staff and counsel to confer about scheduling and said she would set a future hearing if proof beyond the submitted materials is necessary.
The magistrate invited the parties to prepare for a possible contested hearing on penalties, noting that evidence about the frequency and duration of rentals, and the property owner’s knowledge or lack of knowledge, would be material to any penalty determination. No final penalty or dismissal was entered; the hearing was continued for future scheduling and possible evidentiary proof if needed.
Ending: The motion to dismiss was taken under advisement; the magistrate will either schedule a future hearing for proofs or issue a written ruling based on the record.
