Photo by KELLY FARRELL
Resident Kelly Linman raises his hand for a chance to weigh-in on the short term rental ordinance being considered at Friday's planning board meeting.
Many people may be familiar with a one year, six month or even month-to-month lease of a home, however renting several times within a month or a week is often reserved for hotels, but that’s currently not the case on Marco Island.
According to information shared at Friday’s planning board meeting, there are about 2,000 homes in residential areas on Marco Island that are rented out short term.
Currently, these “resort rental dwellings are not permitted” in residential zones, Community Development Director Steve Olmsted said Friday.
Meanwhile, neighbors of these short-term rentals say the city needs to do something about the noise, trash and parking nuisance high-traffic rentals are causing. Because the turnover of offenders is so high, the activity does not cease for long, say neighbors of the resort rentals such as Ken Honecker.
The Planning Board reviewed an ordinance that would make short-term rentals permitted uses in residential areas. Currently the draft ordinance allows two people per bedroom plus two more to rent a residential home or condominium. The ordinance, still a work in progress, includes rentals less than six months and limits such rentals to one lease within a seven day period.
About five residents attended the public meeting and more members of the public spoke up in opposition to the ordinance than in support of it.
Kelly Linman said he believes the ordinance cuts into property owners already limited ability to reduce their costs.
“Passage of this ordinance will also drive the value of condominiums on Marco Island even lower in the current depressed market,” Linman said.
Planning Board member Vince Magee agreed and thought it may also hurt businesses.
“Maybe we should just pack this up and throw it in the garbage and do nothing. This all started with two people complaining because they don’t have good neighbors,” Magee said.
Olmsted said that although the number of problem rental owners may only be about six, the problems at those properties are quite severe and something should be available to protect the neighbors.
The ordinance under review would allow owners to petition for a conditional use for their property to be listed as a resort dwelling. The owner would need to notify all abutting property owners of their intention to rent the property frequently.
The owner or property manager must be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week as a contact point for city communication, according to the proposed ordinance.
Costs for the conditional use permit and fines for violations will be set forth in the next meeting. Also to be discussed is a definition for bedroom.
“As it stands now if I put an armoire in a large walk-in closet, I’ll have a bedroom,” said planning board member Brian Moss.
Ray Munyon said the fire department is requesting that fire inspections be required of resort dwellings.
These matters will be addressed at the next planning board and public hearing on the ordinance 9 a.m., Feb. 13, in the community room next door to the police station, 51 Bald Eagle Drive.
Winged Foot winner Brett Clark
Fort Myers Prostitution Arrests: May…
Community School Graduation ceremony
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 9
jaguar writes:
Marco Island is indeed a beautiful place, which is a very good job, because the people who live on it certainly are not, for the most part anyway. All they are interested in is themselves, not the Island that they are lucky enough to live on. In fact these people would have been very much at home in Russia 50 years ago during the cold war. Look around people of Marco Island, your beautiful little piece of real estate is already nearly on its knees, without tourists it wont last for a lot longer and you really have to wake up to the fact that without all those tourist dollars your lifestyle will be very much the worse. Why dont you stop and think about the people who are trying to run businesses on the island, aren't things tough enough without you making things worse for these people who work day and night to try and make a living in such hard times. Silly me, your not interested really are you, you are only concerned about yourselves ? Do you not understand that the vast majority of people cannot afford to go on a holiday for a whole month, even in good times, let alone during the present economic climate? Do you not comprehand how expensive it is for a family to stay in a hotel these days? Is it beyond the power of your silly petty minded little brains to realise that this year is going to be really really tough. Bear this in mind, there will be no European tourists this year, the dollar exchange rate has fallen out the bottom of the bucket for these people they cannot afford to come to the USA anymore let alone a beautiful little island which is universally known as Mark Up island. STOP BEING STUPID, dont carry on with this ridiculous minimum 30 day rental idea anymore. Do something to save your island whilst you still have the opportunity to do so, or do you really want to wait until there is no more money left in the coffers and Marco Island becomes a ghost town with boarded up shops, no restaurants, no business, run down schools, limited facilities and an end to the lifestyle you have all come to take so much for granted. The way things are, I in common with a lot of others cant wait to get away from your island because it saddens me so much to see what you are doing to it, but then again thats really exactly what you want isn't it ? No-one allowed on the island except you. Why wait any longer, put gates on the two bridges and turn yourselves into the gated community you seem to be so desperate to achieve ? The Mackle brothers would be horrified at what you are doing, which is destroying their dream.
playballonK writes:
its amazing how a handful of whiners can bring a city to its knees. must be someway the good ole' boy network is making a buck off of getting rid of short term rentals, because if they weren't this group would of had the door slammed in their face a long time ago.
gkpritchard writes:
I find it hard to believe that in these difficult times there is a government body ready to impose more economic hardship upon its citizenry. This ordinance will make Marco Island a less-than-friendly vacation destination and will reduce the tourism dollars the city needs. If there are bad rental properties, go after the guests and/or owners and leave everyone else alone. jaguar said it best: "STOP BEING STUPID".
ChuckKiester writes:
FYI: The ordinance the plan board is currently considering does not propose a miminum of 30 days. It does require a conditional use permit which can be withdrawn in the event of weekly "Animal House" problems, just like any other conditional use which must abide by the condidions of their approval. The ordinance is designed to hold the owners responsible for their renters for breaking the law, since the weekend renters simply ignore any citations given out by our police or codes enforcement office as they know they will be long gone before any action can be taken against them. Before you make your final decision for or against, please obtain a copy of the draft from City Hall or its website and let your voices be heard. Chuck Kiester
lauralbi1 writes:
The conditional use applies to the landlord. The best way to hold the renters responsible for their actions and accomplish the desired outcome is to financially penalize a landlord for excessive noise, which, in turn, the landlord will withhold from the renters deposit. Given this knowledge about forfeit of deposits for excessive noise as written in the original rental agreement, the renters will make certain they do not create excessive noise or trash. There is only so much a landlord or agent can do to "check out" renters to determine their likelihood of behaving.
Again, the best way to assure neighborly behavior is to financially penalize those that make the noise, via the landlord, via the rental agreement. Less beaurocracy and better results. $500 for first offense, $1000 for next offense or whatever Council decides.
Ed Issler
ezeee writes:
Very well explained Mr. Kiester, unfortunately it appears you are talking to landlords above, who care nothing about their neighbors, just making money.
jaguar writes:
What planet are you currently living on Ezeee, obviously not the same one as the rest of us.
Make money- what money exactly are you talking about? I have news for you Ezeee, the money we make out of rentals on our property doesn't cover the mortgage. It costs us a lot of money to maintain our house on Marco Island, furthermore a lot of that money goes on keeping local people in work, the rental agency who benefit from the commission, the weekly gardener, the company who do a HomeWatch service on the property ( and the renters for that matter), the pool man, the cleaning company etc. In five years our next door neighbour has only had to contact us once and that was only to let us know that there had been a problem and it had been addressed and sorted out. No problem everything sorted out without a big hulabaloo going on. Lets try and remember that it is only a handful of these properties that are causing a problem. So why should the rest of us responsible Landlords have to suffer ? Dont worry though Ezeee because the ways things are going no-one is going to be coming to Marco Island
at all soon. I'm sure thats going to make you very happy- not sure about how all your neighbours who have businesses are going to feel about that but - hey- what do you care.
ChuckKiester writes:
Again, I request all of you review the proposed ordinance before making judgement as to its merits. ezeee, the proposed ordinance is not mine but the result of two committees in trying to work out a compromise---that's the way democracy works. jaguar, I believe you will ultimately find that not only the process for receiving a conditional use is painless, but that you will also enjoy the benefits of being one of those who are responsible landlords which, as a result, will be in a better position to compete with those land owners "who don't care" for their neighbors or anyone but themselves. Chuck Kiester
SusanJane writes:
I am a "landlord" who rents on a weekly basis. I fully support an ordinance that the police can enforce. It protects me and my property from damage, can legally force renters who violate the rules of my condo as well as the city to be removed. Security and police have had no grounds to evict an undesirable renter from the property fearing reprisals and lawsuits. I am a landlord, not a slumlord. If I wouldn't want the person as a guest in my home I don't want them as a renter. And yes...there ARE some people I don't want on my island and neither should you!
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.