Log in Subscribe

Little Girl Wins Battle With County Over Playhouse

Posted
BRADENTON – Last month we told you about Layla, a 3-year old Ellenton girl who it looked like would lose her playhouse because of a seemingly-asinine zoning decision. We're happy to report that she's won her fight and will be able to continue hosting tea parties with her dog, Adi.

Not many people seek a permit for something like a playhouse, but Jayson and Lauren Przbyla went through all of the departments and processes to get their well-constructed structure approved, only to be told they didn't need a permit. However, while responding to a complaint from a since-relocated neighbor, county code enforcement later told them that because their house is on a double lot that had not been adjoined and the playhouse was technically on a "vacant" parcel, it violated flood plane ordinances and would need to be taken down, unless they were willing to adjoin the lots. You can read more about the whole ordealhere.



The Przbylas didn't want to waste the thousands of dollars they'd invested into its construction, and they didn't want to go through the expensive process of adjoining the other buildable lot to their property, which would have increased their flood insurance premiums and property taxes, while removing the option of selling the lot at a later point.

But they also didn't want to deny their daughter the chance to connect with nature, spending more time outdoors and less in front of a screen. They gathered nearly 1,100 signatures on a petition and were recently told by the county that a revised interpretation of the rules led them to believe the structure conformed after all.

"We are excited that one meritless complaint did not prevent Layla from going to a place where her imagination can be let free and where her creativity can take flight," said the Przbylas of the decision. "After all, this is about one 3-year old girl being able to go to a place that fosters her development. We are grateful the county was eventually willing to make the choice to not close the door on Layla's playhouse and revisit the zoning code and apply it correctly to the situation."

In a letter from the code enforcement department, the Przbylas were told that an opinion from Kyle Grimes of the firm Grimes Goebel, discussed another section the met the "Except as otherwise provided in the code" language in Section 510 of the county code, which had been cited by code enforcement in deeming the Pryzbylas' structure non-compliant. That was:

Chapter 2: Definitions: Use, Accessory

Use, Accessory shall mean a use or structure which meets all of the following:
A.Is clearly incidental to, customarily found in association with, and serves a principal use;
B.Is subordinate in purpose, area, or extent, to the principal use served;
C.Is located on the same lot as the principal use, or on an adjoining lot in the same ownership and district as that of the principal use; and
D.Is not the principal use.

The letter went on to say that the requirement for a permit that the size of the structure necessitated had been met, and that the Certificate of Completion had been issued. Code enforcement staff went further still in recognizing the couples' "patient and more than courteous demeanor" throughoutthe process, especially, "considering the circumstances."

Comments

No comments on this item

Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.