An appellate court declined to hear the storybook case of the Holmes Beach owners who’ve fought for years to keep their Swiss Family Robinson-like tree house from the wrecking ball.
With a request to the 2nd District Court of Appeals eight months ago, Richard Hazen and Lynn Tran of Angelinos Sea Lodge at 103 29th St. had hoped to reverse lower court and code board decisions that ordered fines and remedial action — including the possible removal of the beachfront tree house.
It’s a story that’s garnered worldwide media attention, including the Daily Mail and NBC’s “Today.”
Holmes Beach Mayor Bob Johnson was encouraged by the June 12 ruling.
“Finally, we’ll get them into compliance, which may mean its removal — it probably does,” he said.
The unanimous decision from a panel of three judges allows to stand a September 2014 decision by 12th Circuit Judge Janette Dunnigan.
She described the tree house as an “elaborate” 400-500 square-foot structure with two elevated decks, removable windows, solar electrical paneling, hurricane brackets and straps, supported by posts and an Australian pine tree.
In November 2011, after spending an estimated $30,000-$50,000 to build the structure without permits, the owners received the city’s notice of violation.
The owners later argued that a July 2013 city code board order relied on incompetent evidence; the city’s setbacks were unconstitutional because they conflicted with state law; and the inequity of being initially told by the city no permits were required.
According to Dunnigan’s opinion, however, the owners’ decision to build without permits subjected them to “inevitable violations.”
“Public policy would not be best served by allowing the circumvention of the city’s formal permitting processes,” she concluded.
With the appellate court rejection, the justices declined any comment on the lower court decision.
The three appellate court justices who took part in the decision were Patricia J. Kelly, Marva L. Crenshaw and Anthony K. Black.
City attorneys expect the rejection to be final after several weeks, during which a motion to reconsider may be heard.
According to their Sarasota attorney, David Levin, Hazen and Tran will file a motion for rehearing.
In a written statement, Levin said the appellate court may have misinterpreted the law on the equitable doctrine and “whether the city’s coastal construction regulations can conflict with those of the state.”
Jim Dye of Dye, Deitrich, Petruff & St. Paul, who handled the litigation for the city of Holmes Beach, is expected to advise commissioners by memo what is needed to bring the property into compliance and close the file.
Dye declined to comment June 18, saying he hadn’t finished the memo and because he expects it to contain confidential advice to Holmes Beach city commissioners about “other tree house cases.”
However, Dye did say that the appellate court ruling did not address Levin’s referendum request for a citywide election on the issue of grandfathering the tree house.
The city is seeking a court order to void the election referendum request.
That part of the tree house controversy is still pending in circuit court, according to Dye.
Levin declined comment on the referendum.