The case involving Twisted Tides attracted considerable scrutiny, beginning with an acknowledgment of unresolved compliance issues. Despite some progress, the business had yet to obtain the required BTR and remove prohibited banner flags from its premises. The city’s representative clarified that these violations persisted despite previous orders and fines issued in May 2025, highlighting the business’s continued non-compliance as of September 9, 2025. A property representative, rather than the business owner, argued that he had not been informed of the June compliance deadline, expressing confusion over the notification process. The special magistrate referred to city records indicating that the compliance order had been both hand-delivered and sent via certified mail, a claim the representative disputed. This disagreement prompted a discussion on the delivery method and the representative’s awareness of the requirements.

Further complications arose around the BTR, as the representative attributed delays to issues with a lost liquor license, which he claimed was necessary to complete the BTR process. However, the city clarified that while they requested proof of state licenses, the BTR, as a tax receipt, could be issued independently of the liquor license. The representative acknowledged that the liquor license was tied to the building, adding complexity to the situation. The city emphasized that inspections from the fire department and utilities had not been passed, contributing to the BTR’s pending status. The special magistrate underscored the distinction between local business taxation and licensing, citing legal precedents to stress that the BTR is fundamentally a tax-related matter.

The dialogue also touched on broader compliance responsibilities, with the special magistrate highlighting the obligation of current business owners to address inherited violations, drawing parallels to home purchases where new owners must rectify existing code issues. Ultimately, the special magistrate determined that Twisted Tides remained in violation of the cited codes, noting concerns about the business’s operation without the necessary permits and licenses, and allowing a grace period for compliance before recording the order.

The meeting also revisited the case of Francis Dugan, focusing on a rehearing request related to misleading advertising concerns. Dugan argued that he had complied with city requirements by updating listings to resolve previously dismissed occupancy-related charges. He contested the city’s attempt to link dismissed occupancy issues with advertising violations under section 13.1-4. Dugan maintained that no evidence supported the alleged over-occupancy or guest confusion claims, emphasizing that the original complaint acknowledged the existence of two units. He requested a rehearing based on his compliance efforts and perceived lack of justification for enforcement actions. The city confirmed possessing current advertisements for review, leading to a analysis of the advertisement’s language.

The discussion revealed concerns about the advertisement’s phrasing, specifically the “16 plus guests” statement, which was deemed ambiguous and potentially misleading to potential renters. The advertisement’s vagueness raised questions about its clarity regarding the number of guests each unit could accommodate. The discrepancy between the advertised capacity and actual unit availability contributed to the city’s argument about consumer confusion. Despite additional information available in the full advertisement, skepticism persisted about its prominence in preventing misinterpretation. The city argued that initial impressions created by the advertisement could lead to misunderstandings, even if further text provided clarification.

The conversation noted that the original complaint stemmed from an individual with a history of grievances, who interpreted the advertisement as promoting two units. After considering these factors, the motion for rehearing was denied, with a recommendation for Dugan to collaborate with the city to refine the advertisement’s language. An extension of the compliance date was granted to facilitate this process.

In a separate matter, the magistrate addressed property owner Michael Sarco’s absence from a previous hearing regarding license permit violations. The city requested a finding of non-compliance against Sarco and proposed a retroactive fine to the initial non-compliance date, which the magistrate agreed to impose.