Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacation Rental Occupancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special magistrate fines Cocoa Beach vacation-rental owner $500 for failing to show 8-person occupancy in listings
Summary
At a Feb. 12 City of Cocoa Beach special magistrate hearing, the magistrate found respondent Richard Borer in violation of a prior order requiring vacation-rental listings to state a maximum occupancy of eight people and assessed a $500 fine; the owner disputed the order’s advertising requirement and said platform wording creates ambiguity.
The Special Magistrate for the City of Cocoa Beach found on Feb. 12 that a vacation-rental owner failed to comply with a prior order requiring online advertisements to state a maximum occupancy of eight persons and imposed a $500 fine.
The finding stems from code-enforcement case 24-259 concerning property at 1034 Bali Road. Danielle Crawford, a code enforcement officer for the City of Cocoa Beach, told the hearing that the city mailed the order and that, as of the date cited in the enforcement packet, online listings for the property still read “sleeps 16.” The city asked the magistrate to impose fines beginning Nov. 21, 2024, and proposed a per-day schedule in its presentation.
Why it matters: the magistrate’s order is a final administrative finding in the local code-enforcement process. Owners of short-term rentals are required by the magistrate’s prior order to make their advertisements conform to the city-required maximum occupancy; failure to comply can lead to monetary penalties and additional enforcement actions.
At the hearing, Richard Borer, the respondent and owner of the property at 1034 Bali Road, argued the listing language on platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO is “ambiguous” and reflects bed configurations rather than a guaranteed guest count. Borer said the listing’s “sleeps 16” notation arises from bunk-bed and multi-bed room configurations and does not necessarily mean he accepts 16 guests. “It says sleep 16 people, but that doesn't necessarily per se mean that I'm taking 16 people per reservation,” Borer said.
Crawford told the magistrate the city had reduced other similar listings to read “8, no more than 8” and that the packet showed the subject property’s listings had not been updated. The city’s presentation included mailed notices and screenshots of the listings that, in the city’s view, did not “clearly reflect the maximum occupancy of 8 guests.”
The Special Magistrate recounted the administrative timeline: a hearing on Nov. 13, 2024, an order issued Nov. 16, 2024, and a 30-day appeal period that the magistrate said had elapsed without an appeal being filed. The magistrate said, “what I'm gonna do is find that, yes, indeed, there was a violation beyond the date of compliance and that there's a fine of $500,” and entered a $500 fine for the violation reflected in case 24-259. The magistrate noted the city may pursue repeated-day violations separately if it chooses to do so.
City staff and the respondent discussed steps the owner could take to comply. The magistrate directed that compliance would be achieved by updating advertisements and listings to state the maximum occupancy as required by the earlier order; whether an updated listing would prevent future charges is a matter the magistrate said the respondent should resolve with code-enforcement staff. The magistrate also advised the respondent to work with city staff to agree on acceptable wording for platform listings.
The hearing was adjourned after the magistrate recommended the respondent and city staff meet to resolve the advertisement wording bilaterally.
Votes at a glance: No formal roll-call votes were recorded; the magistrate issued a finding and monetary penalty in the administrative hearing record (case 24-259).
