Back to All About SoWal

Proposed Rental Ordinance Update?

wrobert avatar
wrobertBeach Fanatic
28,064 views
Short term rental ordinance

I heard about this a couple of days ago and finally got around to getting a copy. You guys are going to love this. The request to set up the first public workshop is October 26th. After reading I think you will agree a workshop on this ordinance is a waste of time, but your commissioners need to know your thoughts. This is just the initial DRAFT and no public comment has yet to have been taken.

ORDINANCE 2010-__ ​
AN ORDINANCE OF WALTON COUNTY,FLORIDA; ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR REGISTRATION AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Walton County, Florida (Board) is concerned with the potential harmful affects short-term rentals of single-family detached residential dwelling units have on the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of Walton County; and

WHEREAS, there is an interest in protecting the quality of life of the residents and value of property in Walton County; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Walton County to establish reasonable regulations and permitting requirements for short-term rentals of single-family detached residential dwelling units.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Walton County, Florida that:

Section 1. Authority. Section 125.01, Florida Statutes, and the State Constitution authorize the enactment of this ordinance.

Section 2. Purpose. The Board recognizes that the unregulated short-term rental of single-family detached residential dwelling units by seasonal residents uniquely impacts certain neighborhoods within the unincorporated areas of Walton County. Therefore, it is necessary to provide reasonable means for citizens of Walton County to mitigate impacts created by such rentals as set forth in this ordinance.

Section 3. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows:
Owner shall mean the person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion, or title of property.

Responsible party shall mean the property owner or his/her designee to be called upon to answer for the maintenance of the property and the conduct and acts of seasonal residents of the subject property.

Seasonal resident shall mean guests, tourists, lessees, vacationers, or others who lease or rent a residential property for valuable consideration for a period of time between one (1) day to no more than six (6) months.

Short-term rental shall mean any occupancy of single-family detached residential dwelling units for a period of time between one (1) day to no more than six (6) months.

Section 4. Registration required. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow another person to occupy any single-family detached residential dwelling unit as a seasonal resident within the County, or offer such rental services within the County, unless the person has been registered with the County in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 5. Application required. Every person required to procure a registration under the provisions of this ordinance shall submit a form application for such registration to the County. Applications for registration shall set forth and/or include at a minimum:


  • Physical address, including lot, block, and subdivision name, of the single-family detached residential dwelling unit offered for rental.
  • Name, address, and phone number of owner of the single-family detached residential dwelling unit.
  • Name, address, and 24-hour emergency contact phone number of responsible party for the single-family detached residential dwelling unit.
  • The phone number for the responsible party shall be answered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by a party with the authority to address or coordinate problems associated with the single-family detached residential dwelling unit.
  • Acknowledgements by owner of the following:
a. That all vehicles must be parked in the driveway of the single-family detached residential dwelling unit and clear of all county right-of-way.
b. That it shall be unlawful to allow or make any noise or sound which exceed the limits set forth in _____________.
c. That a sign will be posted and maintained on the single-family detached residential dwelling unit in accordance with _______________.
d. That other properties (not owned by the owner) are not jointly shared commodities and should not be considered available for public use.

  • Proof of owners current ownership of single-family detached residential dwelling unit.

Section 6. Registration are non-transferable. No registration issued under this ordinance shall be transferred or assigned or used by any person other than the one to whom it is issued, or at any location other than the one for which it is issued.

Section 7. Expiration of registration. All registrations issued under this ordinance shall be valid for no more than one (1) year, and all registrations shall expire on March 1 of each year.

Section 8. Responsible party required. The owner shall appoint a person to serve as the local responsible party for service of notices as are specified herein, and notices given to the responsible party shall be sufficient to satisfy any requirement of notice to the owner. The owner shall notify the County Administrator or his designee in writing of the appointment within five (5) days of being required to make such appointment, and shall thereafter notify the County Administrator or his designee of any change of responsible party within fifteen (15) days of such change. Further, it is hereby made the affirmative duty of the responsible party to:

1. Inform all seasonal residents prior to occupancy of applicable Walton County codes and ordinances concerning noise, parking, garbage, and common area usage;
2. See that the provisions of this ordinance are complied with and promptly address any violations of this ordinance or any violations of law, which may come to the attention of the responsible party;
3. Be available with authority to address or coordinate problems with the rental of the single-family detached dwelling unit twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week;
4. Be situated close enough to the single-family detached dwelling unit as to service emergency calls within one (1) hour of notification; and
5. Keep available a register of all guests, which shall be open to inspection by Walton County Code Enforcement Officers at all times.

Section 9. False information. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to give any false or misleading information in connection with the application for registration required under this ordinance.

Section 10. Revocation. Any registration issued pursuant to this ordinance may be denied, revoked, or suspended by the County for any violation of this ordinance, any other County ordinance, regulation, code, or state law. Such denial, revocation, or suspension is in addition to any penalty provided herein.

Section 11. Posting of sign. Prior to the owner allowing another person to occupy the single-family detached dwelling unit as a seasonal resident, owner shall post a sign on the property meeting the following requirements:


  • The sign must be prominently placed on the property so that the required content of the sign shall be legible as viewed from the public right-of-way;
  • Such sign shall not be larger than eighteen (18) inches by twelve (12) inches and not smaller than sixteen (16) inches by ten (10) inches in size;
  • The sign must clearly indicate the name, and twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week emergency contact phone number of the responsible party for the single-family detached dwelling unit. If the responsible party phone number and rental contact phone number are different, the sign shall clearly indicate both phone numbers;
  • The sign must be continuously on the property of the single-family detached dwelling unit during any period the registration has not expired; and
  • The sign must clearly indicate the expiration date of the registration.

Section 12. Penalty for Violation. In addition to any and all additional remedies available at law, any owner violating any provision of this ordinance may be directed to:
1. Cease and desist such violation;
2. Upon a finding of a violation of this ordinance, pay a civil penalty not less than $250.00 for first offense and $500 for repeat violations;
3. Every day a violation continues shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.

Section 13. Judicial Construction. NO provision of this ordinance shall be construed to impair any common law or statutory cause of action, or legal remedy there from.
Section 14. Severability. Should any word, phrase, sentence, or section of this ordinance be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, void, unenforceable, or unconstitutional, then such shall be severed from this ordinance and the remainder of the ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 15. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.

Replies

134
beachmouse avatar
beachmouseBeach Fanatic
#52
Sooo... this is an area that promotes itself as an exclusive beach destination area. There are probably a number of short term property owners who actually would like a less restrictive version of this because it keeps their area from seeming overcrowded, and the overflow from the 'sleeps 24' beach house next door from parking on their lawns and interfering with their renters' quiet enjoyment of their beach time.
WaltonIsOneBeach Lover
#53
Hey Beachmouse, the following county ordinances should be able to deal with the parking and beach rental property noise issues, when enforced. No county ordinance I can find deals with the "seeming overcrowded" issue unless fire safety becomes an issue due to an overcrowded building, etc.

Parking Ordinance

Sec. 20-10. Parking on lawns, pathways, in front of driveways, on private property and in certain rights-of-way.

(a) No vehicle shall be permitted to park on public building lawns, or in front of, or so as to block entrances or driveways into public or private property from streets, avenues, highways or boulevards.


(b) No vehicle shall be permitted to park in any private alley, drive, driveway or on other privately owned property without the permission or consent of the owners of such private alley, drive, driveway or property.

(Ord. No. 2003-15, ? 8, 9-9-03; Ord. No. 2005-09, ?? 2, 3, 4-26-05)

Sec. 20-11. Violations declared civil infractions.

Violations of section 20-3, 20-5, 20-8, 20-9, and 20-10 are hereby declared to be noncriminal, civil infractions and may be prosecuted in the name of the county, in a county court civil traffic hearing, by the sheriff's deputy who issued such citation.

(Ord. No. 2003-15, ? 9, 9-9-03)


Sec. 20-12. Enforcement procedures.

If a sheriff's deputy discovers a vehicle parked in violation of sections enumerated in section 20-11 as well as in violation of Florida Statute, he shall issue a notice of violation to the vehicle on a form to be provided by the county administrator and place a copy of the notice in a conspicuous place on the vehicle. The original notice shall then be filed with the clerk of the circuit court's traffic division which shall process it in accordance with F.S. ? 316.1967(1)--(4). The notice provided the violator and the clerk shall identify the vehicle, license plate number, time, date, location and violation charged. Additionally, the notice shall inform the violator that he has been charged with a noncriminal infraction and that he may elect to either:

(1) Pay a fine of $30.00; or

(2) Waive the scheduled fine and request a hearing with the traffic division. At such hearing the presiding judge shall, upon a finding that the violator committed the infraction charged, impose a civil penalty not to exceed $100.00 plus court costs.

(Ord. No. 2003-15, ? 10, 9-9-03)

Beach Noise Issue (for properties on the beach)

Sec. 22-40. Regulation of use and conduct on the beach.

Items I and J in the county code are as follows:

(i) Sound amplification. No audio device, such as loudspeakers, television, radio, compact disc, tape, or record player, or musical instrument, except equipment used by law enforcement, rescue or beach safety personnel, will be used on the beach in any manner, that can be heard by a person using normal hearing facilities, at a distance of 100 feet or more from the source of the sound without a special permit approved by the Board of County Commissioners, Walton County, Florida, for a fee of $25.00 per occurrence.


(j) Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct. No person shall commit such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engage in brawling or fighting, or engage in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct.
scooterbug44 avatar
scooterbug44SoWal Expert
#54
Scooterbug, again, you need to go back and read and comprehend the proposed legislation once again. ALL short term rentals will not be allowed to hold wedding events. Therefore ALL short term rental units are affected. ALL = 100%.

This fact does not meet the traditional criteria associated with the use of the expletive "Baloney".

Obviously, this "ain't" no "THINK tank". :banging:
The word you are missing is negatively. I know it potentially affects them all, but those who did not allow/hold weddings and who are not currently exceeding the proposed occupants will not be negatively affected.

Mango - it is 1400/200=7 or 2x2 +4=8

You said the house was over 1400 so I wasn't sure if they would round up. Either way it's 7 people in a 2 bedroom.
Mango avatar
MangoSoWal Insider
#55
The word you are missing is negatively. I know it potentially affects them all, but those who did not allow/hold weddings and who are not currently exceeding the proposed occupants will not be negatively affected.

Mango - it is 1400/200=7 or 2x2 +4=8

You said the house was over 1400 so I wasn't sure if they would round up. Either way it's 7 people in a 2 bedroom.

Duh. I read it quickly as 2X2 =4. :lol:
Matt J avatar
Matt JSWGB
#56
I have two questions for waltonisone and beach_umbrella:

1. Are you affiliated with a local rental agency?
2. Are you affiliated with a local "political movement"?
rdelong43065 avatar
rdelong43065Beach Fanatic
#57
I just figured out what NIMBY meant.
BeachbumAggieBeach Fanatic
#58
Not being any owner now nor likely anytime soon, and being as it's just hubby and me, it likely won't be an issue for me when it comes to rentals. I do have lots of friends who come to SoWal with their kiddos. I have several friends whose family consists of 2 adults and 3 small kids and several of them prefer to rent a one bedroom with hall bunks since they are only in their condo long enough to sleep, they just don't really need a larger and more expensive 2 bedroom-sounds like this would force them into that rental option which could certainly make them decide that Pensacola, Ft Walton or Destin might work better for them. We've also had had 2 families of friends rent a 3/2 house with 4 adults and 4 kids in the bunkroom-since this house was probably less than 1500 sq ft, sounds like this would eliminate that option as well. I can see not wanting large parties to be held in a neighborhood since the unit's facilities and parking aren't designed for large parties but it seems overkill to make it where families or a group of friends can't rent a unit that meets their need in the smallest and most affordable space for them.
Groovegirls avatar
GroovegirlsBeach Fanatic
#59
I know many of the people on both sides of this issue. I have not run into many wine sipping, birkenstock wearing hippies. I have encountered some very nice and very frustrated retired folks who simply want to enjoy their living environment. For the most part, on the other side we have legitimate business people who have suddenly found their way of making a living on the chopping block. I say suddenly but this issue has surfaced in several ways many times now. I do feel that the ordinance is over reaching because I do believe it will adversly affect revenue for all of us directly or indirectly. That doesn't mean that I believe that the homeowners should be stuck with all the chaos in their neighborhoods. I don't understand, however, why the county doesn't use the laws already in place to deal with these events on an individual basis. I have been the D.J. at many weddings from Panama City to Pensacola. The major majority are pleasant celebrations of two people joinning their lives. I would hate to see everyone suffer because of the minority. If the county would deal with the problem events and not punish everyone for the activities of the few, we might just be able to all get along. Walton County has been struggling with the issue of quality of life verses interest of business for as long as I can remember. All I can say is that we have to find a balance because one cannot exist without the other. I would love to see all of you and everyone else at the commision meetings because too often the vocal majority overshadows the actual majority on all sides. I, like everyone else involved, am speaking from my personal experience. Perhaps if we could get a large enough representation of the whole community, we could settle this issue once and for all.
YankeegalBeach Comber
#60
What I don't understand is why is this ordinance necessary if there are already noise and parking ordinances in place? It seems that most of the complaints about the "wedding houses" are a result of noise and parking, so wouldn't it just make more sense to enforce the laws that are already on the books?

I have attended several outdoor weddings (as a guest and as an employee), and they all have shut down at 10 PM. The DJ/Band usually makes an announcement at about 9:45 that the night will be drawing to a close at 10, and the vast majority of guests are respectful of that.

Also, why is it that areas such as Seaside, Rosemary Beach, Sandestin, etc. can hold outdoor celebrations (aka: weddings)? These celebrations often take place in the midst of residential neighborhoods. I don't see the County trying to put a stop to these functions.

This ordinance won't simply put a stop to people using rental homes as a business, it will also have a serious negative impact on caterers, photographers, florists, tent/chair/party supply companies. It will also have a serious negative impact on the "little guy" who works for the aforementioned companies. These businesses and people are trying to recover from the negative impact of the oil spill last season, and now the County wants to do this?
scooterbug44 avatar
scooterbug44SoWal Expert
#61
I can understand why the weddings are a big economic issue, but the occupancy still has me confused.

They seem pretty reasonable.

I've been Googling and it seems that many vacation areas have similar rules about how many people can occupy a unit. :idontno:
Matt J avatar
Matt JSWGB
#62
I can understand why the weddings are a big economic issue, but the occupancy still has me confused.

They seem pretty reasonable.

I've been Googling and it seems that many vacation areas have similar rules about how many people can occupy a unit. :idontno:

IIRC it's also a fire code that the total number of people in a rental cannot exceed the number it sleeps. That of course only applies to inside the unit.

I would venture to guess that areas that just happen to have wedding facilities are probably behind this ordinance i.e. Sandestin, Rosemary, Seaside, Watercolor, etc. Follow the money as that is what this is about. If you restrict it to areas equipped for it you've just boosted their asking price and created a premium commodity. Of course that doesn't always mean that you'll have a demand for it.

Edited

lenzoe avatar
lenzoeBeach Fanatic
#63
I agree this proposed ordinance is ridiculous. There are hundreds if not thousands of small rental units on 30A that currently advertise for and sleep more than this ordiance would allow and have been doing so forever. Just one example, there are about 80 units at Hidden Beach villas that quite comfortably sleep 4 people each. This ordinance would reduce that down to a maximum of 2 the way I understand it. It's small, but it's still larger than your average hotel room that routinely sleeps 4. Owners of these units have been doing this since at least the 1980s without harming any neighbors.

I totally agree with WaltonIsOne. If noise and disturbing neighbors is an issue, enforce the existing noise and parking ordinances. I don't rent properties to beyond what they're capable of handling as that's bad for the property. If one of my neigbors gets too noisey, I don't hesitate to call the Sheriff's Office and I tell all my renters to do exactly the same thing. If someone is getting out of line on a beach party, I call them in. Don't come up with an ordinance that's just going to be completely stupid. This is very irresponsible.

If you're trying to give wedding business to a select few cronies, don't screw every other small rental owner in the process.

I strongly advise against trying to turn this into a locals vs. rental owners issue. This will hurt everyone.
Matt J avatar
Matt JSWGB
#64
I'm surprised that some of the commercial interests haven't stepped up. Embassy Suites in Miramar beach would be affected by this. There suites that sleep 4 would suddenly become 2 only suites. Seems like that would cause a huge impact for them.
Beach Runner avatar
Beach Runnerbeats on hood
#65
Some aspects of this ordinance don't make sense to me. For example, I can rent a room with two double beds for four people and one bathroom at the Ritz-Carlton in Buckhead (Atlanta). Would this be unacceptable under the proposed Walton County ordinance?

On the other hand, I do despise the rentals with 4 bedrooms with multiple sleep sofas that sleep 24. Too many people in one house.

We have set a max of 10 people for our home. I don't want multiple families packing up our home over capacity with people sleeping on sofas and on the floor on air mattresses (this has happened before :pissed:). It leads to more damage because there is no accountability with that many families in one house.

Last summer one rental group had a party at our home because it's so close to the beach. There were 25 people in our pool, plus more in the house. Apparently most of them slept over. My home is a home that we share with guests, not party central. If I had known this when it happened, I would have evicted that group early with no refund. But by the time I heard about it, they were gone.

I personally know of many people who pile up a beachfront, one-bedroom with 4 adults and 6 kids.

So I can see the reason for more strict rules. But don't be stricter than the Ritz-Carlton in Buckhead.

Edited

WaltonIsOneBeach Lover
#66
Some aspects of this ordinance don't make sense to me. For example, I can rent a room with two double beds for four people and one bathroom at the Ritz-Carlton in Buckhead (Atlanta). Would this be unacceptable under the proposed Walton County ordinance?

On the other hand, I do despise the rentals with 4 bedrooms with multiple sleep sofas that sleep 24. Too many people in one house.

We have set a max of 10 people for our home. I don't want multiple families packing up our home over capacity with people sleeping on sofas and on the floor on air mattresses (this has happened before :pissed:). It leads to more damage because there is no accountability with that many families in one house.

Last summer one rental group had a party at our home because it's so close to the beach. There were 25 people in our pool, plus more in the house. Apparently most of them slept over. My home is a home that we share with guests, not party central. If I had known this when it happened, I would have evicted that group early with no refund. But by the time I heard about it, they were gone.

I personally know of many people who pile up a beachfront, one-bedroom with 4 adults and 6 kids.

So I can see the reason for more strict rules. But don't be stricter than the Ritz-Carlton in Buckhead.

Beachrunner, you are a prime example that shows that the Short Term Rental industry can regulate itself. Short term rental property owners know how to regulate the number of occupants in an effort to look after and protect their own property investments while being concerned about safety. Self regulation like this does not cost the tax payer one thin dime. Other rental owners and agencies told me they do the same thing.

We all know that once in a while, over occupancy situations happen, and in your case, not even Walton County Fire Marshall Bill could have stopped it as the renters slipped away after they had used already overoccupied your property.
robertsondaviesBeach Fanatic
#67
I'm surprised that some of the commercial interests haven't stepped up. Embassy Suites in Miramar beach would be affected by this. There suites that sleep 4 would suddenly become 2 only suites. Seems like that would cause a huge impact for them.

i think they're exempted as a hotel
Matt J avatar
Matt JSWGB
#68
So true, all of what you just wrote. Who is the Walton County TDC director by the way? I conclude the TDC is useless, all they've done is pollute the area with ****ty signs both on the bike path and on 30a.

I say, don't remit the bed tax. Send them tea instead.

For the record the current TDC director didn't order or install the signs, that was a previous regime.

i think they're exempted as a hotel

Um they charge bed tax, why would they be exempt? If that's the case then the TDC has no right telling me what to do with my 4 room hotel with common space. This could even effect some of the other hotels/motels that have, gasp, two double beds as described by BR above.
Matt J avatar
Matt JSWGB
#69
Beach Umbrella, Don't know how long you've resided in Walton County and how much you know about this area but I can assure you there is a lot more to us than tourism. Unfortunately we had a lot of folks that moved here in "boom times" and perhaps took on more than they could handle. Wish them the best but why should we kill the goose that has been laying eggs for us for years to satifsfy their greed.

As usual the powers that be are not only protecting the goose, but now they want to jack it up with steroids. Why not have an ordinance that allows the number of people a unit can actually sleep. Sure some folks have packed their units with bunk beds, but those are generally for children. To actually specify how many people can occupy a unit is going above and beyond.

Further having read the ordinance again it only stats square footage. It doesn't state what type of square footage. That leaves it open for interpretation. So if my 4 bedroom 2,000 sq ft home has a 2,000 sq ft porch in addition do I get to sleep more people than the condo owner who only has 2,000 sq ft?
Mango avatar
MangoSoWal Insider
#70
As usual the powers that be are not only protecting the goose, but now they want to jack it up with steroids. Why not have an ordinance that allows the number of people a unit can actually sleep. Sure some folks have packed their units with bunk beds, but those are generally for children. To actually specify how many people can occupy a unit is going above and beyond.

Further having read the ordinance again it only stats square footage. It doesn't state what type of square footage. That leaves it open for interpretation. So if my 4 bedroom 2,000 sq ft home has a 2,000 sq ft porch in addition do I get to sleep more people than the condo owner who only has 2,000 sq ft?

What about sheds? I can fit 4 on bunks in mine. :whitetrash:

I don't see this legislation affecting me terribly since I mostly do not exceed the occupancy that would be allowed. I have a 4 bedroom that sleeps 12 in beds (no pull outs, blow ups or bunks) and I do not like more than 12 people. I advertise 10 because I know there will be more.

But, I can foresee problems with this legislation and lots of holes in it. Most of the rental agencies do not count babies/ toddlers in their head count (why for the life of me, I do not know- they still have to bathed, maybe more so than older children- their clothes are generally washed more after they have spilled apple juice on themselves all day or spit up) Personally, I have always counted babies in my head count because it cost me more to house them in power expenses. So, that will have to be ended in the future since the legislation doesn't differentiate between size or age.

Also, you may be following the rules as far as occupancy based on your lease terms, but we all know people bring more on occasion (day visitors included) than the agreed upon lease terms. So, if your neighbors renters know the occupancy, and decide that the larger family is occupying too much of the community pool, or are too noisy for their taste, now suddenly will there be tourists ratting on tourists? and who is responsible if there is a fine? The legislation is vague, to say the least.

But, is there a need for it? Most owners police their own homes or their development may have adopted occupancy rules on their own for the comfort and peaceful enjoyment of their homes and guests; although, there are always a few who really could care less, want the rental regardless what anyone else thinks or how it impacts others.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts