Posted on 01/06/2018 9:24:25 AM PST by plain talk
Lynn Tran and Richard Hazen built a Florida beachfront treehouse that would be the envy of any child. It's got two levels, hammocks and windows looking out on the Gulf of Mexico.
But the hangout has cost the couple a handsome sum: about $30,000 to construct and probably five times that in legal fees as they've fought local authorities over it, Tran said. Now, they're at their last stop, the Supreme Court. Unless the high court intervenes, the treehouse must be torn down.
Soon, however, the city got an anonymous complaint about the treehouse. After an investigation, the city found the couple did actually need to go through the permitting process. And it turns out the treehouse was in an area where building is prohibited because of a city setback.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Much of city housing permitting rules ought to be considered a “taking” and require the authority to issue a public-vote request for the taxpayers to buy the property, via an eminent domain proceeding, or butt out. 90% of the rules constitute meddling and nothing else.
“Whenever you ask a question like that of a cog in the government gears you need to get a faxed, written or emailed reply in writing with the persons name. You then have an avenue of recourse to at least recover your costs.”
Ahh, so the onus is on us; we need to live expecting gov to lie to us about its laws.
Excellent point!
While a project may not violate the rules of one city of county department there may be restrictions in other departments.
That may not be the issue with this treehouse but it is something to be aware of before undertaking any type of construction these days.
My county building code department says it's okay to pour a concrete pad anywhere on my property without a permit.
But the water management department says no because they consider the landscape a dedicated drainage area into a canal.
The environmental department says no because it could alter the drainage and flow of rainwater into a protected wetlands further downstream.
“They should renounce their citizenship, then would be entitled to all the right and privileges of illegal aliens, case dismissed”
Wont work. The dude is white and the lady looks to be asian and they both appear to be literate and in possesion of marketable skills that they can use to contribute positive value to their community, thus neither qualify as minorities. Especially the asian
You can own the “view” if you have an easement on the other property that states so.
However I am a big believer of just letting people do what they want, don’t like looking at your neighbor’s junk? Put up a fence or a row trees. Unless your neighbor is burning tires or dumping industrial waste, you should not care.
Some of these towns have more rules then an HOA and unlike an HOA, these clowns can put you in jail.
At least you don’t live next to him.
If an official remarked that a permit was not needed, that official most likely didn’t expect this fully developed construction project that has occurred. If the owner can prove that schematics, blueprints, plans were presented to The City for all due consideration, they may be able to get some of their money back.
Bottom line, the house is going down anyway. Now it’s become too much of a public war.
I suspect the owner’s wife is the main reason he wants to keep that house up. Perhaps similar constructed homes were not that unusual when seen from her cultural point of view and in those geographic settings.
I’d get some endangered birds to nest in the treehouse, take pictures, and contact the EPA to say it can’t get removed for that reason.
Most likely, the issue revolves around whether a verbal statement by a government employee supercedes the law as written and enacted. Judging from the comments on this thread, many seem to believe it does.
The answer to the question really has wide-ranging applicability. If the law clearly states one thing, but a government employee erroneously misinterprets the law, does the employee's interpretation take precedence over the written law? The question can be raised at every level of government, all the way from townships, counties, and cities, all the way up through the federal government.
“They should have gotten the fact that they did not need a permit in writing. If they had. they would have already won the case.”
Totally disagree. The City would be saying : “we didn’t know it was going to be a BIG treehouse...”
or some such nonsense, and, that silly argument would be upheld.
The only thing this tree house is encroaching on is the Gulf of Mexico.
Sounds like someone else wanted to build out the as well and were told “ no”. The city could let the tree house stay, have them apply for the permits, and inspect it after the fact.
How does your right to enjoy your property deprive him of his right to enjoy his?
*************************************************
We had a tiny beach house that I put up a small fence on the side of the house for my dogs. The neighbor across the street went nuts, because I blocked some of his view.
He tried to get the city to make me take it down, even though it was permitted.
He sued me for lost of value to his property.
The judge ruling was basically... If he wants a view, let him pay for it.
You are not guaranteed an ocean view when you by a house across the street from the ocean.
I’m curious how much of the beachfront a city can claim jurisdiction over as compared to the state or Fed.
The only thing this tree house is encroaching on is the Gulf of Mexico.”
Yup.
“Sounds like someone else wanted to build out the as well and were told “ no”.”
Yup.
“The city could let the tree house stay, have them apply for the permits, and inspect it after the fact.”
That’s too simple and nice of a solution. The citizen isn’t punished enough.
Much of the value of beach front property is the ability to sit on your deck and watch the surf or a storm at sea.
If this couple builds their ‘tree house’ on the beach that blocks my view of the ocean that impacts my ability to watch the ocean and decrease the chance that I can sell my beach front property for a profit.
Mainly because it is no longer beach front property because this tree house is between the beach and my house.
I would not be surprised that the city setback mentioned in the article was imposed for just this purpose.
Thanks for the photo. That guy did a beautiful job on the treehouse. Incredible! However he was not too bright to build it on a city setback.
“But ... but .. he called them and they said no permit required”. Yeah right. Did he get it in writing? He might have called them and said we are going to build a treehouse and the clerk might have envisioned a few board platform in a tree as opposed to a small house. Anyway — the permit is sort of a side issue.
The real issue is ... did he build a structure on a city setback? Yes or no? If he did he violated zoning restrictions. The Supremes are not going to weigh in on local issue involving a treehouse FCOL.
Having said all that ... all he needs is a waiver to the zoning ordinance. I can’t imagine reasonable people not allowing that beautiful structure to remain .. provided that IF the city needs to use the setback in the future he agrees to tear it down if necessary. Put all that in writing.
Reasonable people would work it out. The locals are being aholes.
The other option is for him to just ... “move it” onto his unrestricted property. LOL
Regardless, if they had received a written letter stating they did not need a permit. They would be in better shape.
Move it or lose it is going to be the end result.
A sad situation as I am with them and believe in property rights.
Digger48
Sounds like quite a story.
Could you perhaps restate it using a more common form of English or perhaps provide a translation Table?
Big Blow? = A cocaine import coop? A wind power firm? Hippies? Thailand?
thx
My town is pretty good on zoning. They try to keep the RVs and commercial trucks out along with front porch refrigerators and pole barn additions. If it never fails that someone moves in builds or parks something then cry’s foul when told to remove it.
Anything related to real estate must be in writing to be enforceable and that includes opinions from your local zoning clerk. There may be exceptions but that’s the principle.
My town is also intermixed and surrounded by a County with minimal zoning. I tell the neighbors f you don’t like strict zoning why didn’t you move two blocks over into the County? The answers usually is they want the higher property value.
I grew up in the country. It was anything goes but it was understood and no one every complained.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
