Owners of a beachfront tree house in Holmes Beach are pushing back with resilience, unlike the spindly Australian pine supporting the structure they hope to retain.
Richard Hazen and Lynn Tran, owners of a tree house constructed in a beachfront pine tree at 103 29th St., have filed a writ of certiorari Oct. 15 with the 2nd District Court of Appeals. They are asking the higher court to review the Sept. 16 opinion from the lower court that favored the city.
Hazen and Tran have been found in violation by the city code enforcement board of several sections of the land development code and for not obtaining building permits in July 2013.
The couple appealed the code board’s findings in September 2013, which put the case in 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Janette Dunnigan’s courtroom at the Manatee Judicial Center in Bradenton.
The case hung in the court for a year until Dunnigan’s ruling upheld the code enforcement board’s decision.
The Oct. 15 appeal by Hazen’s and Tran’s attorney David Levin of Icard and Merrill in Sarasota challenges Dunnigan’s decision. However, the DCA must first agree to review the case.
The litigation surrounding the tree house has more than one branch with a case filed by the city still pending to declare null and void a petition, and referendum, submitted by Hazen and Tran to the city.
Following the initial finding of violation by the code board in September 2013, Hazen and Tran circulated the petition, gathering signatures of 10 percent of the city’s voters.
The petition forced commissioners to vote on an ordinance in October 2013 that would grandfather the tree house, but the measure failed, lacking a second among the commissioners.
Levin then filed for a referendum that would put the fate of the tree house on a ballot in a special election. If allowed, Holmes Beach voters would make the call to keep or remove the tree house.
Petruff filed for a declaratory judgment in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court that would kill the referendum and special election.
Her argument contends a state statute prevents a referendum for a development order, and that anything requiring a building permit — the lack of which caused the hullabaloo in the first place — falls into the category of development.
The code board’s initial ruling found the tree house to be in violation of several city and state codes and to have been built without a permit. The state violation includes the structure being built within the setback for the erosion control line.