Palm Coast board finds 11 Walnut Place meets short‑term rental definition after PadSplit evidence

The City of Palm Coast Code Enforcement Board on March 31 ordered the owner of 11 Walnut Place to register the property as a short‑term rental or face fines after staff presented inspection photos and service documents.

Business tax office staff read the city’s short‑term‑rental definition into the record, telling the board a short‑term rental is “any single‑family dwelling … rented out to guests more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to guests.” Tiana Belgrove, with the business tax office, said staff had contacted the management company PadSplit and found arrangements that meet that standard.

Respondent Rocky Gianetta told the board he had provided leases and believed the unit was being rented as longer‑term rooms rather than a turnover short‑term rental. “I did receive the notice … I provided via email the lease that I have in place, which is a 1‑year lease with a company that’s managing the property,” Gianetta said. He added the company’s records showed residents staying several months, and he asked what lease terms would qualify the home as a long‑term rental.

City inspectors and the business tax inspector, Mike Giuliano, told the board PadSplit’s model — leasing rooms to a company with occupants who may change frequently under short minimums — fits the ordinance’s short‑term rental definition. Giuliano said the matter had been reviewed by the city attorney and deemed a short‑term rental under city code.

After questions from board members and discussion about whether the arrangement more closely resembled a rooming house, a motion to accept the city’s recommendation passed. The board approved a compliance order giving the respondent 10 days to register or face a $25 per‑day fine and a $69 administrative fee.

The board’s action was procedural: staff introduced photographs and proof of service, respondents were heard and the board voted to adopt the city’s proposed order. The city did not record individual roll‑call votes in the transcript beyond the board’s voice vote that the motion passed. The board did not, in this hearing, amend the code language; staff and attorneys urged members to direct ordinance questions to city council if rewording is desired.