Ferndale City Council Meeting - July 27, 2026: Administrative Hearing on Short-Term Rental License Denial at 2341 McDowell Street

At the regularly scheduled meeting on July 27, 2026, at 6:00 PM at City Hall, the Ferndale City Council conducted an administrative hearing to consider the appeal of the denial of a short-term rental license for the property at 2341 McDowell Street. Councilmember Sabatini served as the appointed hearing officer. The city's rental ordinance enforcement officer, Brett Sturts, testified for the city, and the property owner, Ian Davidson, presented his case. The hearing was ongoing at the conclusion of the provided transcript; no final decision was made.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public spoke during the Call to Audience portion of the meeting.

Discussion Items

• Appointment of Hearing Officer: Councilmember Sabatini was appointed administrative hearing officer for the appeal via a motion and voice vote (all in favor). The hearing was opened at 6:06 PM.
• Testimony of Brett Sturts (Rental Ordinance Enforcement Officer):
  • He confirmed that the property had a short-term rental license that expired on December 5, 2025. A reminder letter was sent on October 7, 2025 (attachment #3).
  • An application for renewal was submitted on October 22, 2025.
  • An initial inspection found missing handrails, a missing smoke detector, and the need to inspect an RV on the premises.
  • A follow-up inspection on January 22, 2026, found the handrails and smoke detector fixed, but the RV was still winterized and could not be inspected. It was also discovered that the property was being used as a duplex, contrary to the single-family application.
  • A letter dated January 27, 2026 (attachment #5) notified the applicant that the rental certificate must be secured by February 4, 2026.
  • After that deadline, the property continued to be advertised and rented without a license. Two advertisements were observed: attachment #8 (Entire rental unit in Ferndale) and attachment #11 (Bohemia Top King Suite Hot Tub Pool Games at MLC).
  • A police report from June 15, 2026 (attachment #9) indicated 20-25 people at the property, with liquor and minors present, resulting in citations.
  • A citation (attachment #7) was issued for rental listed online above occupancy limits.
  • Mr. Sturts decided to deny the application based on the police report, outstanding violations (RV and duplex), and illegal advertising/renting without a license.
• Testimony of Ian Davidson (Property Owner):
  • He stated he has been a short-term rental operator for over 10 years, with seven listings in Royal Oak. He claimed he was operating in good faith and was unaware of the expired license and the duplex issue until recently.
  • He argued that he fixed the interior items and believed he was "good to go" after the January 22 inspection. He said he did not receive the January 27 letter about the duplex violation.
  • He acknowledged the police incident on June 15, 2026, attributing it to a storm that disabled his cameras and a guest exceeding limits. He said it was his first such issue in over ten years.
  • He requested a 60-day conditional extension to work with the building department to bring the property into compliance.
  • Under questioning, it was revealed that the Airbnb listing was still active and bookable as of July 14, 2026, despite Davidson's claim that he took it down in June. Davidson contended the listing was not bookable due to a third-party software issue.
  • He acknowledged receiving the October 7, 2025 letter but said he thought he was working in good faith.
• Council Questions and Discussion:
  • Council members questioned both witnesses. Key clarifications included: the RV had not been inspected; the duplex issue remains outstanding; the occupancy limit violation; the listing was still up; the owner's awareness of deadlines.
  • Councilmember Sabatini read the criteria for denial/revocation from the administrative hearing ordinance (Sec. 7-346), which includes failure to meet requirements, violations, nuisance, code violations, pattern of patron conduct, failure to maintain grounds, advertising contributing to disorder, and failure to permit inspection.
  • It was noted that multiple criteria appeared to be met, though some were challenged by the applicant.
  • The owner acknowledged that the duplex designation was a change from the prior year and that he needed to select one of the two units to rent.

Key Outcomes

• No final decision was made during the portion of the meeting captured in the transcript. The hearing was still in progress, with evidence and testimony presented from both sides. The appeal remains under consideration; a future decision by the city council is expected. If the denial is upheld, the ordinance provides that the license shall not be reissued for one year from the date of revocation (Sec. 7-159 subpart 5).