0:00The city’s case against Bour centered on his non-compliance with a previous order to amend his property listings to reflect a maximum occupancy of eight persons. Bour had been required to update his advertisements following a magistrate’s order issued on November 16th of the previous year, which he did not appeal, thus making the order final. Despite notifications sent via certified and first-class mail, Bour’s listings continued to state a capacity far exceeding the city-mandated limit, advertising a capacity for 12 to 16 guests.

He stressed that the listings were structured to show potential sleeping configurations for families and did not equate to a breach of the occupancy limit during rentals. Furthermore, Bour mentioned he had declined rental inquiries surpassing the city’s occupancy cap and had included disclaimers referencing city ordinances in his listings. He questioned the city’s interpretation of his advertisements.

The city representative countered Bour’s arguments by emphasizing that compliance required clear advertisement modifications reflecting the eight-person limit. They noted that other property managers in the area, like Happy Palm Stays, had successfully adjusted their listings to align with the ordinance. The representative insisted that the requirement was unambiguous and that Bour’s continued non-compliance warranted financial penalties.

19:43The special magistrate clarified that the prior order was final, with a compliance deadline that had passed without appeal. Under Section 1-8 of the city’s code, fines for such violations were capped at $500 unless further violations occurred. The magistrate stated, “I’m going to find a $500 fine,” confirming the violation and specifying that future infractions could incur additional daily penalties if not rectified.

Bour expressed confusion over the legal proceedings and the implications of the order. He questioned the clarity of the requirements and highlighted potential ambiguities in the city’s interpretation of his property listings. The magistrate recommended that Bour engage with city officials to gain a clearer understanding of compliance steps and to ensure that future advertisements accurately reflect the occupancy limits.

The magistrate reinforced that the goal of the city was compliance rather than punishment. They highlighted that the hearing was focused on compliance, not on reassessing the merits of the original order. Despite Bour’s objections, the magistrate adjourned the hearing with a clear message that compliance with city ordinances was mandatory.