Make like a tree and leave.
Circuit Court Judge Janette Dunnigan ruled in favor of Holmes Beach Sept. 16 in regards to a long-disputed tree house in an Australian pine on the beachfront at Angelinos Sea Lodge, 103 29th St., Holmes Beach.
The city code enforcement board had found Angelinos tree house owners Richard Hazen and Lynn Tran in violation of several sections of the land development code and lacking building permits in July 2013.
However, no one from the city, the attorney for the code board, Jim Dye, including the code board chair at the time of the ruling, Don Schroder, could respond as to the next step in the case.
Hazen and Tran appealed the code enforcement board’s findings in September 2013 to the 12th Judicial Circuit Court, where the case lingered for a year.
The couple also challenged the constitutionality of the city’s setback for the state’s erosion control line and asked that the board be prevented from enforcing any alleged code violations, claiming the property owners were advised by staff that “the city of Holmes Beach has no regulations involving the construction of a tree house.”
According to the background included in Dunnigan’s opinion, Hazen met with then-city building inspector Robert Shaffer and building official Joe Duennes in April or May 2011, asking about regulations to build a tree house.
He was told by officials that there are no specific regulations for a tree house. He claimed he was not advised of the need for a permit. Hazen also did not provide the city official with specific plans, the scope of work or the location of his project.
Shaffer later said he did not know the tree house would be so elaborate and Hazen said he would not have known at that time.
The tree house has been compared to the Swiss Family Robinson tree house in the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World Resort. Angelinos tree house is 400-500 square feet and is supported by an Australian pine tree and other pilings.
There are two elevated decks with removable windows. It is not fully enclosed. It is not wired for electric service, although there is solar paneling, and there is no plumbing. It is sparsely furnished.
Hazen and Tran began construction in May 2011 without further guidance from or notice to the city. The city received an anonymous complaint about the construction six months later, after the couple had spent $30,000-$50,000.
The couple received a first notice of violation in November 2011 and stopped construction.
It took more than a year for the city code enforcement board to secure findings for numerous violations, including failure to meet required zoning compliance; failure to obtain a building permit before constructing within the erosion control line setback for a multi-story assembly structure; and construction was in violation of the land development code.
The board delivered the administrative order with its findings July 2013, and ordered Hazen and Tran to come into compliance. They also levied a $100 daily fine until such time the structure was brought into compliance.
The owners appealed to the circuit court, challenging the board’s findings and requesting a stay of the fine during the appellate process.
The code board refused to grant a stay on the fines, but it was later granted by the circuit court.
Dunnigan said the board relied “on substantial competent evidence” in finding Hazen and Tran in violation of 11 sections of the city’s land development code.
She also found it unreasonable to assume that one meeting with city officials could cover the extent of the project, saying the couple had a duty to gather more information from the city before undertaking the project.
Hazen and Tran’s appeal was denied by Dunnigan on every challenge, which will reinstate the original administrative order handed down by the code enforcement board.
Schroder, who served as chair of the code enforcement board at the time the matter was heard by the city, said, “It’s a nice vindication of what we did.”
While this battle may have been won by the city, the war may be over.
City attorney Pat Petruff stated in an email, “I suspect it’s not over yet.”
City clerk Stacey Johnston said there is yet pending an appeal of the city’s denial of a petition, a process fulfilled by Hazen-Tran, that would put the matter of retaining the tree house before the voters in a special election.
I feel the decision was correct. I feel the other comments have missed the point. It’s not matter a of whether the structure is “lovely” or if it’s a “wonderful attraction for tourists.” Building construction must comply with city code. Building codes are made for the overall good of a community and the safety and well being of its citizens.
As an annual visitor from the UK ( family holiday ) I have always thought the tree house has been tastefully developed and we enjoy looking at it on beach walks.
im glad the city ruled against it. They did not have permission nor permits or go through proper channels. The city is there to protect us! It isn’t any eyesore but WHAT IF EVERYBODY DECIDED TO DO THIS illegally? It was too much when she started trying to stop people from walking along the beach on “her” property.
They didn’t follow the rules so I have little sympathy for them.
But I think city leaders should reach a compromise with a hefty fine — say $250k — and something written into city law that says all future dwellings that skirt the law will be demolished, sending a clear message to other scofflaws.
Look, everyone is wasting a lot of money in legal fees. Starve the lawyers, feed the tax base and resolve this in a way that keeps most happy.
I also feel that the tree house is a wonderful attraction for tourists and I also enjoy seeing it and showing it off to my guests on the island!
My husband and I think the tree house is lovely and a real drawing card for tourists and is not an eyesore. We enjoy seeing it on our daily walks on the beach and don’t think the owners should be made to take it down.