It’s time to go.
Raymond Guthrie Jr.’s stilt-house — built on pilings over the water near the commercial docks in Cortez — might not remain standing much longer.
Judge Edward Nicholas of the 12th Judicial Circuit Court issued a final order Oct. 26 requiring Guthrie to remove the structure, which was built in 2017 over Sarasota Bay waters owned by the state and safeguarded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The house must be removed by Jan. 24, 2021.
Guthrie has been locked in a legal battle with the DEP for three years, maintaining that the structure is a re-creation of a 1900s “net camp,” where cotton fishing nets were stored by commercial fishers for generations, including his father and grandfather.
Nicholas first ordered Guthrie to remove the 1,200-square-foot structure Feb. 18, setting a June 3 deadline to complete the job.
Guthrie requested an additional 30 days to comply and, despite the DEP’s opposition to the request, Nicholas extended the deadline to July 3.
When the deadline passed and the structure remained standing, the DEP filed a motion for contempt against Guthrie for failing to comply with the legal order.
Nicholas’ final order denied the DEP’s motion for contempt but granted its request for Guthrie to remove the structure according to their terms within 90 days.
The DEP’s terms for the structure’s removal, which were established in an order from Nov. 17, 2017, include:
- Guthrie must give 24-hour notice to the DEP in advance of the structure’s removal;
- Stockpiling of tools and materials along the shoreline is prohibited;
- A floating turbidity apron must be installed around the structure prior to removal;
- Once removed. the structure must be placed in a self-contained disposal site;
- Any watercraft associated with the removal must be operated within waters of sufficient depth to prevent dredging.
The DEP also requested that Nicholas enforce $6,500 in penalties and costs against Guthrie, but the judge shelved the decision until a later date.
“At such time as this court revisits the issue, should Mr. Guthrie fail to remove the enclosed docking structure within 90 days of the effective date of this order, such failure shall be considered as evidence in support of payment of penalties,” Nicholas’ final order states.
The final order also provides, “The issue of whether the pilings underneath the unauthorized enclosed docking structure also need to be removed will be taken up at a later date. At such time as this court revisits the issue, the parties will be given the opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of their respective positions.”