Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacation Rental Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cocoa Beach magistrate orders vacation-rental penalties, requires $250 business-tax payment
Summary
Special Magistrate Lonnie Groot ordered respondent Bridal Miller to pay a $250 local business tax fine plus statutory penalties and left a separate $500 fine in place, after the respondent said he had paused future vacation-rental listings while resolving a fire-inspection hold.
Special Magistrate Lonnie Groot ordered on March 12 that respondent Bridal Miller must pay a $250 local business tax fine plus any statutory penalties for a vacation rental at 162 Bimini Road, and left a separate $500 fine in place for potential future enforcement.
The order follows a compliance (Massey) hearing in which Code Enforcement Officer Danielle Crawford told the magistrate that Miller had failed to obtain a business tax receipt and an RS-1 registration for a vacation rental and had been found noncompliant at a prior hearing on Nov. 13. Crawford said Miller completed the business-tax and registration applications "to the best of his ability" but was delayed by the city’s fire-inspection process and had blocked out future rental dates while the issues were resolved.
Groot said he would enter an order requiring the $250 business-tax fine to be paid, reinstating or sending the second fine identified in the earlier order and leaving the order in place so future or repeat violations could be addressed. "I'm gonna enter an order that requires the $250 fine to be paid for the local business tax, plus whatever, the penalties that go along with that statutorily. And, we'll resend the second fine and leave the order in place," Groot said during the hearing.
Crawford told the magistrate the city's goal is to obtain compliance, and that the city and Miller had agreed he would not engage in further violations. Miller told the magistrate he had placed future listings on hold while working through the inspections and registration issues.
The magistrate said the written order would be signed and distributed by Crawford within a couple of days. No vote by a governing body was required; the magistrate issued the compliance order as the adjudicating official for the quasi-judicial proceeding.
The case file lists the violations as failure to possess a required local business tax receipt and failure to complete an RS-1 registration for a vacation rental; Crawford identified the prior hearing and the two code provisions on which the earlier noncompliance finding was based. The magistrate retained the order so the city can pursue penalties if future or repeated violations occur.
No further testimony or witnesses were recorded for this case, and the magistrate confirmed the order would be entered and distributed by the city.
