Laserfiche WebLink
violation. Apparently, County rules prohibit residents from <br />renting their properties for less than 30 days. He assured those <br />present that Majestic would continue to sell units in exactly the <br />same way as in the past. However, they are being told that the 7 - <br />day stay is illegal. <br />Director Keating explained that the hotel/motel is defined as <br />a unit that is rented for less than 30 days. He admitted that <br />there needs to be some dividing point where something stops being <br />a traditional, conventional residential use and becomes more of a <br />commercial hotel use. There needs to be something in there -- some <br />definition, some characteristic, some criteria -- but, 30 days is <br />in the ordinance at the present time. <br />Mr. Brion reiterated that all they are attempting to do is <br />legalize the practice that has been in effect at Sea Oaks for the <br />last 12 years. <br />Director Keating explained that the break off point is 30 days <br />and anything under that is hotel/motel. Anything over that is <br />considered as a residential unit. <br />Elaine Taggert of Sea Oaks wondered if Sea Oaks planned to <br />sell the units or rent the units, and Mr. Brion explained that <br />their intentions are to continue the same way they have been, which <br />is to sell the units to individuals who would have the ability to <br />rent their units under some system like they have had in the past. <br />Robert O'Connell, 1825 Lakeside Blvd., resident and owner of <br />property south of the Disney property and north of Indian River <br />Shores, stated that he has rented his property on occasion through <br />the Sea Oaks rental system. Originally, he was told that owners <br />could rent their property for a minimum of two weeks, but recently <br />they were told that the County prohibits anything under 30 days. <br />He felt the Commission has a responsibility to define a limited <br />stay to reflect the reality of the present situation. He did not <br />oppose the proposed amendments. <br />There being no others who wished to be heard regarding the <br />residential resort amendments #1 through #5, Chairman Bird asked if <br />the Board wished to direct staff to make any changes in the 5 <br />amendments that have been proposed for residential resort. <br />Commissioner Macht suggested that the Board consider the 5 <br />items separately. <br />Amendment #1 -- <br />Director Keating assured Commissioner Adams that the Planned <br />Development review is more subjective than a special exception. <br />23 <br />L_AUG 231993 <br />BOOK 90 P�rUF 283 <br />