Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City cites Jungle Hideaway for unpermitted awning; nightclub‑use question continued pending liquor‑license review
Summary
Magistrate accepted a stipulated violation that an overhang at the Jungle Hideaway expanded a nonconforming structure without permits and ordered removal or permitting; the court continued the question of whether the venue is operating as an impermissible nightclub (amplified live music past code hours) to June 25 so the city can verify liquor‑license details and other evidence.
A Sarasota magistrate found there was an unpermitted expansion at the Jungle Hideaway (2525 S. Tamiami Trail) and accepted the parties' stipulation that the white overhang/canopy expanded the footprint of a lawfully existing nonconforming hotel structure.
City witnesses introduced historic aerials and survey evidence showing the overhang did not exist on older maps and testified a building permit was not on file. Based on that evidence the parties stipulated to a violation for the awning; the magistrate ordered it removed or, if possible, the owner must obtain the required permits or approvals to legalize the structure.
Why it matters: The proceeding addressed two related compliance questions: unpermitted building work that alters the footprint of a nonconforming structure, and whether the business' current operations meet the city's newer definition of a nightclub, which would make the use impermissible in an RMF‑4 district unless particular liquor‑license conditions apply.
The city presented social‑media advertisements and a sign showing live music and entertainment late into the night. "They meet the definition of a nightclub use because they are operating using amplified sound after 11PM," Allison Christie, general manager of development services, said while describing advertisements posted to the venue's Facebook page.
City staff and the respondent debated whether a 4‑COP liquor license with SSR/SRX designations (which require ongoing food service and a sales mix) would exempt the venue from the nightclub label. The magistrate said the liquor‑license question required additional documentary verification; the city agreed to research prior license records and the parties agreed to continue the nightclub portion of the case to June 25 to allow the city time to gather that information.
What's next: The magistrate ordered a written finding on the awning violation (removal or permitting) to be prepared by the prevailing party; the nightclub use allegation will be revisited at the June 25 proceeding after the city vets liquor‑license records and any other evidence of late‑night amplified entertainment or police/noise complaints.
Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the hearing record (city development staff, surveyor, and the magistrate).
