Photo by KELLY FARRELL // Buy this photo
Marco Island resident Amadeo Petricca speaks with Marco city councilor Frank Recker at the closing of the joint meeting between the Planning Board and the Ad Hoc Short-term Rental Housing Advisory Committee Wednesday evening.
Photo by KELLY FARRELL, Staff
Buy this photo »
Marco Island resident Amadeo Petricca speaks with Marco city councilor Frank Recker at the closing of the joint meeting between the Planning Board and the Ad Hoc Short-term Rental Housing Advisory Committee Wednesday evening.
Submitted by Ken Honecker
Multiple cars parked on the lawn of 640 Dorando Court are just one of the problems that neighbor Ken Honecker has reported to Code Enforcement and Marco Island Police over the past couple years. Honecker said noise, trash and parking at this neighboring short-term rental disrupt his quality of life. The home is rented for periods of less than a week or weekend by Realty Net Real Estate. A new ordinance is being drafted to help minimize the multiple code violations and nuisances to neighbors on similar transient occupied properties.
Whispers of hidden agendas working behind the scenes in the creation of a short-term rental home ordinance were brought to the microphone Wednesday evening.
A short-term rental is defined as a property rented for as short as one day to as long as six months. The ordinance was being drafted to address what Rental Housing Committee members said were a low volume of problems but extreme violations at these types of properties in single family areas.
With these renters on island for a short time, responding code enforcement and police officers reported that it was difficult to hold the visitor accountable for the noise, parking, trash and other offenses they committed before they were already out of town.
The joint meeting between the Ad Hoc Short-Term Rental Housing Committee and the Planning Board Wednesday evening began with a request for all members to openly declare their interest in the topic of short-term vacation rentals located in single family neighborhoods.
City Councilor Chuck Kiester, acting as the non-voting chairman of the rental committee, requested everyone from the Planning Board and committee speak clearly into the microphone about their interest or possible conflict of interest on the issue.
One by one, the announcement revealed that three committee members may have a vested interest in allowing short-term rentals, including Sandi Riedeman as executive director of the Marco Island Chamber of Commerce, Dick Shanahan, associated with WCI realty and George Percel, also associated with WCI Realty.
On the other hand two committee members, Karen Salvi and Ken Honecker, were interested in not allowing short-term rentals which had become nuisance neighbors.
The remaining four committee members present revealed no personal interest.
Salvi described her neighboring short-term rental as a “hotel house” with “unbearable noise” and a near constant change in the people coming in and out of a home next door to hers.
“The majority of the board had other agendas,” she added.
Tarik Ayasun, a member of the Code Enforcement Board acting as a member of the Ad Hoc Rental Committee, said he did not appreciate the repeated accusation.
“I resent the fact that since we sat on this committee, we have been accused of special agendas. I don’t want to hear it anymore. We’re all here as Marco Islanders,” Ayasun exclaimed.
Rental committee member Keith Dameron added that the goal of the ordinance was to ensure Honecker and Salvi “don’t have to abandon their homes just to get some peace and quiet. Karen (Salvi) and Ken (Honecker) had an agenda ... every member had an agenda. They’re right. That what it’s all about,” Dameron said.
Planning board member Vince Magee said he believed there is a difference between “an agenda, a thought and an opinion.” He recommended consulting a dictionary.
While several meetings have been held on the short-term vacation home issue, new related issues were raised by the planning board and public.
Resident Gay Santiago believed the portion of the ordinance that would address maximum occupancy should be revisited. Rather than using the “formula of two people plus two more people per bedroom, the formula should be based on the square footage,” Santiago recommended.
Planning board member Vince Magee said as a father of six children he was particularly worried about protecting children from pedophiles. The potential of thousands of people moving in and out of a vacation home in a single family neighborhood was a threat he believed should be examined.
Salvi, who said she spent her “entire police career arresting pedophiles in Chicago,” agreed that crime is a part of the problem. She said her neighbor retaliates by damaging her property when she calls the police with noise and other nuisance complaints about the vacationers.
Planning Board members said they appreciated a solid launching point with the draft ordinance provided by the committee.
However it sounded as if with the varying opinions in the room, that many of the same issues addressed by the Rental Committee would be revisited by the Planning Board.
Planning board member Irv Povlow said the issue of limiting rentals in single family areas to at least 30 days as is common in many cities across the country should be revisited. Something Salvi and Honecker said they hoped for from the start.
Povlow also questioned whether current zoning already restricts resort rentals from being in areas zoned single family residential.
Community Development Director Steve Olmsted said he believed vacation rentals were allowed in single family areas.
Olmsted cited the city’s comprehensive plan as recognizing Marco Island as a resort community. He added that the zoning issue “could be argued either way. It would have to go to court to be determined.”
The current short-term rental draft ordinance requires a property owner or designated manager be available at all times to address any problems with the property. The short-term renter and the owner will be held responsible for immediate problems.
The owner will also be held accountable for repeat violations of noise, trash, occupancy or parking infractions via fines from the Code Enforcement Board. A permit for such properties issued by the city could be revoked upon repeat violation as well.
While some believe the fines are not enough and the planning board is likely to revisit them, they currently begin with a fine of $250 for the first violation, $500 for the second violation within two years and eventually up to $1,000 for the fourth violation in two years.
Upon a third violation in two years, the property owners may go before the Code Enforcement Board who could label the property a “nuisance” and charge a $1,000 to $5,000 fine.
The Planning Board will be completing the short-term rental housing ordinance before forwarding their recommendations to City Council.
Povlow recommended that ad hoc committee members and the public attend as many of these meetings as possible to help create the desired final product.
Marco St. Pat's festivities
Measuring the Weather
Marco soccer teams win Gold, Bronze 
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 16
marcotaximan writes:
Guess what? Ayasun has a SHORT term rental property on LEEWAED court.
Fossil writes:
Owners of properties used for less than 30 day rentals should be held accountable by a substantial fine. First offense $5,000, second $10,000 and every day in violation an additional $1,000 per day should be imposed. If property owners had a risk involved real estate agents could not convince them to sign a contract, to rent their property for less than 30 days. Every property owner should be able to do what they want with their property, but they also must be held accountable when their business infringes on the peace and quite of their neighbors who have rights too. I am sure this type of law would put a voluntary halt to these less than 30 day party rentals. Leave it up to the owners to decide how much risk they want to take. You can be sure that condo associations would put a halt to any landlord's rental activities that caused problems within their community. So why not give home owners have the same protection. After all, isn't code enforcement doing the same job for home owners that condo associations do for their apartment owners?
hourigan82247 writes:
Seeing the picture of Recker and Petricca dicussing the situation.... why does the movie "DUMB & DUMBER" come to mind? If this picture was titled ; it would be called " A BSer BSing a BSer"
gkpritchard writes:
I do not believe the scope of this problem is understood. I'm sure the majority of short term rentals on Marco are problem-free. The suggestions being made are punitive to all landlords who have short term rentals. If there was a problem with autos speeding on Collier Blvd. would you propose banning cars on Marco? No, you'd propose going after the drivers who speed. The problem isn't short term rentals; the problem is BAD short term rentals. Go after the offenders and leave everyone else alone.
Marcosnook03 writes:
MmARCO, you make a good point. However, you have it backwards. The many are the tourists which bring money into the economy of this little rocl and make for us to enjoy a viable economy in a sluggish time. Don't blame the short termers in general, just crack down on the problem ones.
blondie writes:
Marco is a resort destination. Many people here depend on visitors money for their survivial. The problem is not short term renters. The problem is the offenses that some renters commit. These individual offenses should be treated separately one at a time. Lets not throw out all renters and the money that they spend here for the few offenders. Everyone on this island depends on the tourist dollars for one thing or other. Use common sense. Fine the owners who rent to repeat offenders.
34145 writes:
Isn't the owner of Flagship Rentals, which does weekly rentals, on the Planning Board? Has he recused himself from these discussions due to conflict of interest? It would seem to be equal to the 3 committee member's situation regarding "vested interest".
Fossil writes:
blondie, you are on the right tract but going in the wrong direction. I agree, the owners must be held accountable. In order for them to really feel accountable they must be motivated to do the right thing. Like every business venture there must be risk involved. Issue large fines with the FIRST offense. This will cause them to do background and historical rent searches to protect themselves. It will cause them to insist on strong contracts that renters cannot escape from. It will cause them to insist on large sums of money to pay for insurance and damages. It will cause them to insist on a contractual coupling of responsiblity with the real estate agent. It will cause the real estate agent to make sure the renter is abiding by the contract. It will make them reconsider taking on less than 30 day rentals. It will make their neighbors happy and secure knowing the short term rental unit on their street will not be a problem or one phone call to the police will cause all heck to rain down on the owner of the unit. That is what will work. blondie, if you want to do short term rentals, get into the hotel business or rent out condos. Stay out of our neighborhoods unless you agree to be held accountable for your business practices and your clients behavior.
hourigan82247 writes:
GEE! Is 9 Tahiti Rd. a rental?
Marco47 writes:
Absolutely correct MMarco! I stayed at my house over the 4th. The rental house on Hernando - near the Tigertail entrance - partied all day and night. It was amazing how the music came on as soon as the sun came up! Their front lawn was used as a parking lot. After two nights of it, I called the police who handled it very well. The renters left the next day and left behind a pile of trash at the curb.
jaguar writes:
Go on Fossil and MM put me out of my misery and tell me, are you the two old farts in the balcony on the Muppet show?What a pity that you have nothing better to do than moaaaaaaaaaaan.You sad sad pair of morons.Thank God you and your fellow worshipers are the minority and not the majority of reasonable and level headed people here on Marco.
Marco47 writes:
Jaguar, why are you so bitter and crass? This is an open forum to express opinions - not personally attack and start name-calling. I am interested in the topic because I do own a home on Marco. I don't rent it out. We use the house about one month out of the year. I like to enjoy my time outside when I am at our house. Having a rental house across the canal is problematic at times. Who should be held accountable?
jaguar writes:
Marco 47 since you asked,I really had no intention of sounding bitter however I also have a house on Marco that I rent out through what I believe to be a responsible Marco agency.From the comments and pictures left in my guest book it would seem the families who have stayed at my house are good solid American stock who rent anything from 1 week to 1 month never anything less.This is the only way until my retirement kicks in that I can realize the American dream and own a little piece of paradise that gives me hope for the future.Whilst I can understand the problem of nuisance renters to full time residents of Marco it would seem to me this is the minority and not the norm.I honestly believe the agencies and renters should be ultimately responsible.and should be fined accordingly.It might help if when these people rent it was brought to their attention what is acceptable and what is not whilst they are renting ie parking on the verges, over crowding of property,trash being left out etc.In my eyes the solution is no to limit rentals to a 30 day minimum stay but to lay out the ground rules before they rent and if they are not kept to then fine them not the owners who have no idea what is going on in their absence.This is why I rent through an agency.What really gets to me is the time this issue is taking to be resolved and also the power that some of the committe members seem to have on what could ultimately result in me loosing my property if I have no renters.You might say thats my own fault and ofcourse you would be correct.But it was the only way for me to proceed up the ladder.It would be nice to have this issue resolved fairly So that we could all get on with our lives.
Marco47 writes:
Jaguar,
I see your point and you make a reasonable case. I agree that there shouldn't be a 30 day limit - that would create a hardship for many property owners. I also agree that the rental agencies should play a role in the monitoring of the property during a rental. Rental agencies should also be responsible for a timely clean up of the property when renters depart. I am sure that the rental agencies are paid a hefty sum - they should provide quality service. I hope that this issue is resolved shortly. I see that the government of the island can drag their feet! Thank you for your information.
Fossil writes:
Jaguar, I now understand your point. Unfortunately, the make-up of the committee insures that the realtors or "agents" do everything they can to maintain the status quo. I rented long term for 13 years and paid for my property. I realized very quickly that short-term rentals although more lucrative, did my property no good. Absentee landlords should be able to get an enforceable contract for services that will hold the renter accountable and force the agent to act on the landlord's behalf to enforce it. However,on Marco Island that is not likely. A realtors association or the Chamber of Commerce should be taking the lead to write enforceable contracts and avoid future problems for absentee landlords. But it is easier for them to pretend they are working for a hotel. Problem is, hotels have insurance and lawyers to cover these problems. So that is why I place it all on the landlord. Responsible service must include vetting renters, enforcing strong contracts that will hold agents responsilbe for legally seeking restitution for damages and fines that may result from a renter's behavior or actions while in the home. Without that type of business arrangement, the absentee landlord must be held accountable. A property owner must understand that renters are are not just big pockets but also potential liablities. I agree with you, this shouldn't take this long to come to a solution. Throw the irresponsible realtors and lawyers off the committee and you may see some movement. Perhaps a requirement for a landlord or realtor to hold an insurance policy or large security deposit is the answer. The policy and an enforceable contract would serve to protect the landlord/agent and be a pretty big hammer to use against these bad renters.
BobA writes:
I live in the UK and bought a house on Marco as an own use vacation home with potential longer use in retirement. We do short term rents to help cover the high costs (taxes, insurance, maintenance etc) of having the home. Whenever we visit (2-3 times a year) we always speak to our neighbours to make sure they haven't been disturbed by our renters and have always had positive feedback. Most short term (1/2 week) rentals happen in the off season and are predominantly Europeans who are not well to do retirees, like most of the Snowbirds, they only get short time off work and have often saved all year for their special vacation. To all the antis I would say that the vast majority of renters are good neighbours and the vast majority of owners have pride in their homes and are just as keen to have good renters. Most renters who are disrespectful outside the home will also be the same inside! It is important to maintain this summer vacation traffic or there is a risk that businesses will not survive and/or there will be more pressure to "fleece" the season renters and/or people who need this income will sell up and put more pressure on already depressed property values. If some renters cause a nuisance penalise them not the majority. I don't understand the issue about not being able to respond quickly enough when there is a problem, we have our own police force (at great expense) and I know from bitter experience that US police are perfectly capable of handing me a fine on the spot for speeding. If an ordinance is required make it about anti social behaviour (we call them ASBO's over here) which carries a fine and then as owners we have something tangible to explain to a renter when they get the keys (and become responsible). I do also believe that Agents have a greater role to play to justify their cut, as frankly at the moment they appear to be the only party with no vested interest in having good renters. I only have two other observations, why buy a property on an island like Marco which is a) high density and b) a vacation destination and then complain about occasional disturbance, what do you expect, it's like buying near an airport and complaining about noise! Secondly, when someone makes a major investment having checked out specific requirments like rental periods allowed I don't believe the rules should be changed,(bit like the sewer issue) that is just not right. An Englishman's home is his castle and I'll defend my rights to mine (even if it is on US soil)!
PS we love the island and can't wait to get back.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.