Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Grandfathering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowner disputes decades‑old ADU restriction, seeks grandfathering; magistrate pauses enforcement
Summary
A long evidentiary hearing in Sarasota over whether a 1948 secondary kitchen can be retained as an accessory dwelling or must be downgraded prompted testimony from the owner, counsel and city staff; the magistrate continued the matter to allow possible state legislation and ordered the owner to pause new short‑term rentals.
Steven Levison testified under oath that a small kitchen in a secondary structure on his property dates to 1948 and has been preserved for family use and, later, occasional short‑term stays. Levison said the city previously issued a certificate of occupancy and that, historically, inspectors indicated a simple, on‑site solution (removing appliances from the unit) would suffice.
City counsel and building staff described options the owner could pursue to bring the space into formal compliance — including reducing square footage to qualify as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or performing electrical and structural work to reclassify the space — but they said those fixes would require permit work that would eliminate the homeowner's ability to operate the space as a short‑term rental. Miss Kennedy (city representative) noted building‑department requirements such as pulling the electrical to a normal outlet and other work that the department views as necessary to prevent reinstallation of appliances.
Counsel for Levison, Chris Stain, asked the magistrate to consider equitable factors and the property's long history, saying the owner relied on field conversations and a certificate of occupancy issued years ago. Levison described repeated efforts to engage with plan reviewers and FEMA documentation tied to earlier storm repairs; counsel argued the circumstances are unique and urged forbearance or grandfathering rather than forcing costly retrofits that would devalue the property.
At several points counsel and the owner flagged a recent news report about House Bill 313 — legislation discussed in the hearing transcript — that could, if enacted, preempt local ADU restrictions. The magistrate said that possibility weighed in favor of a temporary continuance. He also asked whether the owner could suspend Airbnb bookings while the matter is reviewed; counsel agreed it was fair to pause accepting new reservations pending the next status date.
The magistrate left evidentiary questions open so the parties could supplement the record if they find additional historic proof that the configuration predated the key statutory cutoff (1974). Because the legal and technical questions are unresolved, the magistrate continued the hearing for a limited block and instructed the owner not to accept new short‑term reservations until the next status date. The matter was reset for a 30‑minute block on April 23 at 11:00 a.m., with the owner and counsel expected to provide any additional documentation or witness testimony.
Why it matters: The case highlights tension between long‑standing residential practices, evolving building and short‑term rental rules, and pending state policy that could change how municipalities regulate ADUs. The magistrate’s 60‑to‑90‑day pause creates a narrow window for legislative developments or for the owner to assemble historical evidence that might change the outcome.
