Love them or hate them, Airbnb and VRBO units are all over Florida.
The state allows them and often that is the excuse for a county or municipality to allow them. However, Airbnb laws in Florida fluctuate from county to county.
Some counties in Florida have restrictions on where an Airbnb can be located.
Clearwater Beach, as a general rule, does not allow short-term rentals of 30 days or less in any of the city’s residential districts. Jacksonville allows short-term rentals in residential districts in single-family homes, two-family homes, duplexes, and townhouses, provided that they hold a short-term Vacation Rental Certificate. Miami Beach restricts the city zones in which short-term rental properties can exist. In Kissimmee, the house or lodging must be in a zoning district that allows short-term rentals.
Some counties and municipalities have restrictions about who can stay on site.
In Orlando, you can rent to only one party at a time and you, as the owner and full-time resident, can rent no more than half of the number of your dwelling with no more than two people per room and no more than four non-relatives per dwelling. Orlando prohibits the short-term rental of entire, un-hosted units and only home-sharing is approved. Also in Orlando, the owner must provide proof of ownership including two forms of proof of residence to establish primary residency to rent out the property as part of Home Sharing Registration (registrant) must live on-site and be present when hosting guests. This is to prevent the renting of properties by tenants with the intent of subleasing to generate income. If the registrant is not the property owner, they must provide notarized permission from the landlord or owner to operate in addition to the lease allowing short-term subleasing.
Some have random rules.
In Fort Pierce, owner and local service emergency information must be available to guests, including either a provided landline or cell phone with the ability to call 911. In Hollywood, a registered Airbnb must have a noise monitoring system installed.
But what about Martin County?
Martin County Airbnb Regulations
Unless a Homeowners Association or Property Owners Association restricts them, Airbnb’s are permitted throughout Martin County with no restrictions to location.
In Martin County, if you rent a property through an online platform like Airbnb, you’re required to collect from the renter a 5% Tourist Development Tax and then pass that on to the Martin County Tax Collector.
According to the Tax Collector’s site, “The tourist development tax is a 5% tax on the total rental amount collected from any person or other party who rents, leases, or lets for consideration living quarters or accommodations in hotels, motels, apartment motels, timeshares, rooming houses, tourist or trailers camps, mobile homes or condominiums for a period of 6 months or less.”
Also according to the Tax Collector site, “Any renter who resides for a period of 6 months or less in a facility located in Martin County.”
The only exception to the Tourist Development Tax is anyone who leases in excess of 6 months or those who “have paid the resort tax continuously month-to-month for the first six months on the same rental unit without a lease.”
Regardless, there is no “Collection Agreement” between Airbnb, VRBO, or any other vacation rental platform and the Tax Collector so the owner needs to add the 5% to the cost to include it in their rate and pass it on to the Tax Collector.
In addition to this, the homeowner is responsible for registering with the State of Florida’s Department of Business & Professional Regulation.
According to the State of Florida DBPR, in Martin County, the number of Vacation Rentals include 312 Dwellings (i.e. a home), 60 Condos, and 194 Apartments that are listed.
Yet doing a quick search on Airbnb, there are currently over 1,000 properties listed.
228 SE Ila Street – Airbnb is the least of the issues
There is one property at 228 SE Ila Street in Stuart that was the focus of code enforcement at the meeting with City of Stuart Magistrate on Wednesday, March 19.
The home at 228 SE Isla Street was purchased by Robert Haas, Jr. on October 3, 2019. The home was (and is) zoned as a residential single-family home with a stated variance by the homeowner. However, nobody seems to know what the approved variance actually is. The City of Stuart has asked Mr. Haas to provide proof of the variance with no results.
The two-story home had been documented as having once housed a beauty salon in the 1970s and a photography studio from the 1980s to 2018. The issue is not what the house was used for prior to Mr. Haas purchasing it. The issue at hand is the conversion of the home by Mr. Haas and that none of these improvements were permitted yet current and former City Staff knew the house was subdivided, knew permits were being sought, assisted in getting the permits after-the-fact, didn’t inspect the property, and allowed the uninspected renovated home to be rented on Airbnb.
That is the issue.
Mr. Haas removed an interior stairwell and walled off the section next to the stairwell. There was an exterior stairway to the second floor at the time of the purchase however if was modified by Mr. Haas (without a permit) to be perpendicular to the house. The stairwell outside provided only one access to that unit. He also walled off a portion of the house to create two separate units downstairs. All of these efforts created a total of 3 independent units.
Mr. Haas’s efforts were documented by a former tenant, Doug Bomeisler, who expressed his concerns to the City on numerous occasions through emails with photo documentation.
Some important dates to note:
- January 2019 – Mr. Haas is alleged to begin his renovations without permits with the majority of the work on the east side of the house being done in 2021 and 2022, the side used the Airbnb.
- 8/1/2022 – Photo taken by Steve Nicolosi, former City Inspector (retired), showing firewall installed (no permit).
- 11/21/2022 – Email from Mike Mortell to Steve Nicolosi “It is not illegal to rent your house to a third party. It is illegal to create three residences.”
- 12/31/2022 – Mr. Haas filed a complaint with the City about code enforcement prompting an email from the City Attorney on to ask “Why did you call the city for an inspection during Covid If you did not have a permit in the first place?”
- 1/12/2023 – The inspector stated “Engineer will need to verify and sign off on all work” with no evidence that the engineer verified or signed off on any work other than a firewall.
- 1/12/2023 – It was noted on the building (structural) review on the permit entered by City Building Inspector 01/12/2023, “Contractor cannot rent out if he did work.” (Mr. Haas did the work himself.)
- The engineer’s letter used by the City to close the code enforcement ticket dated 12/22/2022 even though the permit wasn’t issued until 12/30/2022 after-the-fact. It is important to note that it was stated in the letter that the inspection was November 15, 2022 but the change to the firewall was in late December 2022. Thus the inspection over a month earlier was irrelevant and not applicable.
- 7/23/2023 – Final Order from City of Stuart stating the property was brought into compliance May 12,2023. Yet house was still partitioned into three units and in contradiction to approved zoning and rented in violation of the previous email that it was illegal to have three residences. Fine was reduced from $48,250 to $18,850.
- 5 emails sent to and from the City regarding the trash in the side yard between 11/30/2024 and January 18, 2025. The trash included an unusable Boston Whaler, a trailer with a hole in the roof and a tarp on top, an inflatable tender (boat) only partially inflated, a fire pit, some lumber, and other items.
Mr. Haas admits that he didn’t have the appropriate permits. He is not a contractor nor is he electrician or plumber. Yet he is documented as having performed widespread electric, plumbing, air conditioning, and structural work.
In his Airbnb, Mr. Haas wrote “The right side is a separate residence that I stay in, and will only show up to clean the leaves from the pool and patio…” It goes on to say “There is a 6 ft privacy fence between us in the back, and in the front we share a driveway with lots of parking.”
The house was clearly changed from when he bought it.
But that’s not the most important part
Mike Mortell, former City Attorney and current City Manager, had a lot of correspondence with his former high school classmate, Mr. Haas about his project.
An excerpt from one of the emails reads “… Bob Haas claims he doesn’t have to do anything because he knows Mike Mortell and David Dyess and they will let him do what ever he wants and there will not be a fine.” I don’t know who you said that to or why but you need to know that I have done everything I can. I went out on a limb and got the consent agree that would waive everything if you complied by Oct 31. When you blew that off and did not do anything except for continue to do even more work without a permit, you put me in a really bad spot. If I get fired over this case, I am sure the next lawyer the City hires is going to be much harsher than I would ever be.”
Also in this email there is a statement that there would be NO FINES OR PENALTIES for at least some of the work done.
On 12/21/2022 Mr. Mortell wrote “If you read the agreement, you will see that it says if you obtained the after the fact permit by October 31, you did not have any penalty at all. ZERO, nothing. That was a great deal. This is not a situation where someone replaced the hot water heater and didn’t realize they didn’t need a permit. This was a complete and total remodel. By your own emails you claim that it was every single room in your house.”
This is documented email communication stating that the homeowner made extensive renovations without permits and the City was fully aware of the extent of the renovations with the opportunity for the homeowner to avoid any penalties.
Wednesday's Magistrate Hearing
The hearing this past Wednesday, March 19, began at 2pm with this item being heard first.
Paul Nicoletti, Code Enforcement Magistrate for Martin County, the City of Stuart, the Village of Indiantown, and the Town of Jupiter, led the meeting with Lee Baggett as the City Attorney presenting the case for the City.
The City proceeded first, laying out their case and using the testimony of Mr. Bomeisler, the former tenant, who documented most of the photos used by the City.
It was stated by the City, supported by the testimony of Mr. Bomeisler and Robert Perez, City Code Enforcement, and ultimately stipulated by Mr. Haas that the work done was, in fact, done by Mr. Haas. There was no dispute about any of it. He removed the stairwell. He built a firewall. He created a third living area. He created a multifamily residence.
There was also extensive photo documentation of debris in yard, including a mobile trailer covered with a tarp because of a hole in the roof, a Boston Whaler with no engine, a partially inflated tender (boat), furniture, a fire pit, lumber, and other items.
What was disputed heavily by Mr. Haas was *why* he did it.
First, he claimed that certain changes were made before he bought the house. That could be true. As there was no permit filed for nor zoning change application, we can’t be 100% sure, except we have the photos taken by Mr. Bomeisler as the work was occurring.
But Mr. Haas also claims he was told by Mr. Nicolosi, former (retired) City Inspector, not just what to do but HOW to do it. In Wednesday’s hearing, Mr. Haas said “Mr. Nicolosi told me I needed a firewall (to separate the residences).”
This statement implies that Mr. Nicolosi knew there were multiple residences being created. However, that does not change that the home was never zoned for nor approved for a multifamily.
But it appears Mr. Haas is attempting to revert the property back to a single-family residence. He has put a door in where the dividing wall is. He has removed the outside stairs to the upstairs unit. He has started rebuilding the stairwell inside.
All of these things are being done unpermitted at this point.
He’s also begun cleaning up the yard.
Mr. Nicoletti stated he was giving Mr. Haas until 4/19/2025 to obtain his permits and until 5/19/2025 to complete the cleanup of the yard.
If these things are not done, the fine to be assessed is $100 per violation per day and Mr. Haas is required to pay $300 in costs to the City.
In the meantime...
As of May 22, 2024, it was the City’s position that instead of sending code compliance to the home, it is up to a neighbor of the homeowner to provide documentation of what has happened on site.
The City took the position that Mr. Haas hadn’t “performed any additional unpermitted construction on his home or that he has sub-divided his home into 3 units to rent out.”
Yet there are public records of photographs provided, emails confirming the work done, an Airbnb listing that stated “The right side is a separate residence that I stay in, and will only show up to clean the leaves from the pool and patio…,” and a Trulia listing that read “In the 2000’s following hurricane damage to the roof, a metal roof was added to the complete property, along with vinyl siding. 2018/2019 had improvements of a remodeled pool, 3 remodeled kitchens, 10 new double pane argon windows, increased wall and attic insulation, 3 remodeled bathrooms, hardwood floors restored, any paneling replaced with drywall.”
There were clearly three residences / units.
And Mr. Mortell acknowledged in December 2022 via email that the work, had, in fact been done and the property was, in fact, being rented out on Airbnb.
City Staff expressed their concerns over the safety of the structure for the illegal renovation work performed by the owner. They contacted Airbnb but then did nothing like issue a citation or do anything to stop Mr. Haas from inviting paying guests into his home they never inspected for work they never permitted.
In the meantime, Mr. Haas has paid for no permits except after-the-fact though this recent order requires him to get them with a specified deadline. He has earned money from renting out multiple units as part of his Airbnb. He hasn’t registered with the state. And presumably hasn’t passed on the 5% Tourist Development Tax to Martin County.
There were multiple complaints filed. It has been the work of the Mr. Bomeisler and other neighbors, but mainly Mr. Bomeisler, that has created the opportunity for the Magistrate Hearing.
It is not the job of a community member or resident to do the job that code compliance should do. I understand that this may not be high on the City’s priority list of things to investigate, but to seemingly suggest that responsibility lies with a neighbor is unfortunate, at best.
Ample photo documentation and a confirmation of the lack of permits while one homeowner was provided disparate treatment giving him the luxury to address what many of us are not offered.
The issue is not if Mr. Haas, or anyone, wants to rent out their property. The County and City allow it. There are currently no restrictions. Though it was made very clear that Mr. Haas was not allowed to convert his property and he certainly was not allowed to rent it out because the did he work without permits and did it himself.
The issue is the permission, grace, and latitude given to some and not others as the City acknowledged potential safety issues while ignoring the rules to which the rest of us are obligated.
The precedent has been set.
One Response