Bert Harris suits are beginning to stack up against the city of Holmes Beach.
Mayor Bob Johnson was served April 20 with the newest one.
The plaintiff is a trustee of the Patricia H. Hutchinson trust, Frederick C. Hutchinson II.
On behalf of the owners of 104 75th St., the plaintiff’s allege $552,000 in damages under the Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act.
Filed April 14 in the 12th Circuit Court, the complaint states, “The Hutchinson family had always intended to redevelop the property … through maximizing the development potential for sale or similar to the vacation rental uses surrounding it.”
It alleges six ordinances enacted between 2013 and 2016 inordinately burdened the plaintiff’s development rights in the R-2 zoning district.
Adopted after a public outcry that blamed renters for parking, noise and garbage problems and investment properties for changing the city’s residential character, the ordinances restrict the number of bedrooms and the building envelope, prohibit underground connections, increase pool setbacks, limit occupancy and impose parking and other restrictions.
Fred Hutchinson, a hall-of-famer whose Major League Baseball career was cut short in 1964 when he died of cancer, had moved his wife Patsy and children to the home in the 1950s.
Lifetime AMI resident Joe Hutchinson, one of four siblings named in the trust, said he thinks it’s unfair for the city to devalue properties and take away property rights, especially from elderly people.
Patsy Hutchinson died in 2016.
“My mother was in her 90s when all of this was enacted,” he said, adding, she didn’t have the wherewithal at that time to fight the city.
A city action is a spring board to rights under the Bert Harris Act.
Hutchinson’s complaint alleges the city denied the variance — precluding a successful building permit application — and includes a letter from building official Jim McGuinness.
McGuinness rejected Hutchinson’s application — including changes to living-area-ratio, bedroom size and number of bedrooms, the location of water features, minimum setbacks for pools and hot tubs and a reduction in dwelling-unit separation — as improper subjects for a variance.
The letter also stated the application was incomplete because it did not contain site plans for the existing parcel and the proposed variances.
The complaint states the right to develop the property as a rental property compatible with the surrounding properties no longer exists.
It concludes the owner is “now permanently unable to obtain investment backed expectations.”
An appraisal is attached to the complaint in support of the alleged loss in market value.
The plaintiff also alleges the no-change letter sent in response to November 2016 claim is not a “bona fide attempt to reasonably resolve the claim.”
Hutchinson said, “It’s not in the best interest of the city not to settle.”
“I think they’re going to lose these lawsuits,” he added.
Two other Bert Harris lawsuits are pending against the city in the 12th Circuit Court.
Hutchinson’s residence is neighbored by properties owned by limited liability companies. One such company, Swackhamer Investments, Bmeehan Investments and Kmeehan Investments, filed a complaint in March, alleging $225,000 in damages.
Another pending Bert Harris suit is from Bob and Ellen McCaffrey, owners of 7003 Holmes Blvd., who have alleged $106,000 in damages. In March, the McCaffreys fought off a city dismissal motion.
Some 37 claims against the city have yet to mature into lawsuits.
The city has a 150-day period to respond to claims with a settlement offer, which in the case of Holmes Beach have been offers of no change in government action for 13 pending claims.
The next city response is due in June.