After nine years, it’s unclear if there is an end in sight for the dispute over a Holmes Beach treehouse.
But with indications of settlement discussions in one of several cases, one never knows.
Holmes Beach residents Richard Hazen and Lynn Tran and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed a joint stipulation Nov. 19 to abate — or pause — one of three lawsuits over the controversial treehouse at the Hazen-Tran beachfront property while they discuss a potential settlement.
The case began in December 2018, when the property owners sued Holmes Beach and the DEP, seeking a temporary injunction to stop the accumulation of fines against them and to prevent the forced removal of the treehouse.
Tran and Hazen built the treehouse in 2011 behind their home at 2818 Ave. E, Holmes Beach, where they also operate four vacation rental units as the Angelinos Sea Lodge.
The two-story structure has been in contention since the city learned in November 2011 of the construction, which lacked a building permit and determined the location violated a 50-foot setback for the erosion control line.
The matter resulted in a handful of lawsuits between the property owners, city and DEP, including one win for the city, as well as accumulating fines against the owners.
More than $167,175 in total fines have accrued against the property owners, adding to a litigation bill in excess of $170,000.
On the other hand, litigation had cost the city roughly $200,000 as of August.
The city was dismissed from the DEP case in July 2021 and the Nov. 19 joint stipulation indicates a settlement may be a possibility between the property owners and DEP.
“During the discovery process, several possible settlement options have emerged. Each of these resolutions will require time to achieve,” the stipulation states. “The parties agree that more time is needed to explore the settlement options.”
However, the stipulation also states that the requested abatement may be dependent on the results of the original 2013 lawsuit over the treehouse, in which Hazen and Tran sued the city of Holmes Beach regarding the constitutionality of the municipality’s zoning and setback laws.
“Additionally, the plaintiffs are involved in ongoing litigation with the city of Holmes Beach. … The result of that case would be dispositive to several of the possible settlement options between the parties in this matter,” the stipulation states.
If a settlement is dependent on the results of that case, it may take a while: It has been active since 2013 and no hearings are scheduled, according to the Manatee County Clerk of Court website, manateeclerk.com.
The case’s last hearing was in October.
A third active lawsuit — between the property owners and the city — hasn’t had a hearing since November 2019 and has no hearings scheduled.
Attorney Jay Daigneault of Clearwater-based Trask, Metz & Daigneault law firm, who represents the city, declined to comment Dec. 9 about the ongoing litigation.
Richard Hazen declined to comment Dec. 7.
Lynn Tran-Hazen declined to comment on the case in a Dec. 8 email to The Islander.
In 1992, while in Quantico, Virginia I read of a landmark constitutional case in the Washington Post. Some of the governments in one the Atlantic states hit by Hurrican Hugo decided they would solve the problems of storms, damages and services by just prohibiting the building on barrier islands, the same thing FEMA promoted with all of their regulations a decade before. The property owners of those beach houses on the barrier islands asked how they would be paid for their property, the government said you will not, we aren’t taking your property, just your property rights, you can’t rebuild and no new structures of any sort. See the US Constitution requires compensation for taking the citizen’s property, so they said they didn’t take it, just have total control of it. The SCOTUS disagreed, taking property rights without compensation is un-Constitutional, I suspect that was the basis of Harris suits today. In this case the city gave tacit approval then said it wasn’t really approval just the Building Official’s opinion, searched to find a reason, settled on taking the property owner’s rights away, because there was no specific violation (as the official said). Bet the DEP is so happy to be dragged into this aesthetic argument, see some didn’t like the looks but they didn’t own the property, so they ran to the city to find a reason to have it removed, hundreds of thousands of dollars later was this well spent, I think not.