Nice treehouse. However if it violates zoning and cannot be brought into compliance as in this case then it must go.
“Before they began constructing the treehouse around an Australian Pine on their property in 2011, Hazen asked the city whether they needed a permit. The answer: No.”
Huh. I guess that doesn’t count.
They should renounce their citizenship, then would be entitled to all the right and privileges of illegal aliens, case dismissed.
Unless the zoning is tree house specific, there's a chance in court.
But I'd have to look at it a bit more.
I’d never live in a tree house. Trees are infested with all kinds of bugs, especially ants..........
The SC is supposed to hear cases that involve constitutional issues that affect large numbers of people.
The old idea of a person taking something like their water bill or a speeding ticket "all the way to the Supreme Court by god" is as bogus as "anybody can grow up to be president".
Typical Bi\g Brother overreach.
Next they will condemn the property, seize it and then the mayor can move in.
The city needs to learn to live with it.
And get their ducks in a row because obviously their rules are so complex they have no idea what is or is not permitted.
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.
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’m curious how much of the beachfront a city can claim jurisdiction over as compared to the state or Fed.
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.
The way the term “setback” is used in the article I don’t believe setback is the actual issue. Right of way, easement, setback are not one and the same. The city probably has an easement or if there is a setback it may be based on the dune line. There are very good reasons why there are setbacks and easement established from the dune line.
There are avenues of asking for a variance to such setbacks and easements (I don’t know of any for right of ways). Simply put though when a board or commission makes a decision on such matters it has to follow the existing law. Since they are acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. So if the setback is absolute for new construction they are not able to make an exception.
Now all this would have come to light if the people had been properly informed about the need for a permit. But even a structure not needing a permit must be built outside of easements and within the established setbacks. This usually is more stringently enforced in Special Flood Hazard Areas.
IT is rather obvious from the photo that the structure would have needed a building permit. It is not a “tree house” as most people think of one. I am rather unsympathetic to them. Though tearing it down seems rather unnecessary.
Before they began constructing the treehouse around an Australian Pine on their property in 2011, Hazen asked the city whether they needed a permit.
...
The Australian pine is not a pine, but is more like a very large weed and is on the Florida Noxious Weed List. It was used by early farmers in Florida to create windbreaks and will grow just about anywhere including the beach which is where this treehouse is.
But this ain’t that.
This is how zoning works. We lost some control of our “property” through that set of laws.
Unless we’re willing to eliminate zoning entirely, we have to follow the rules.
from the picture posted it looks ugly
