Nezam Tooloee says he was singled out for harassment by the city staff.

A city councilor was ordered this week to remove a backyard treehouse that violates multiple city regulations and state law.

The city’s pro-tem hearing examiner on Tuesday concluded that the treehouse at Nezam Tooloee’s Seabold home was built within a buffer protecting steep shoreline banks.

The 12-by-12-foot platform violated state and city rules prohibiting structures within protected vegetative zones, geologically hazardous areas and on unstable slopes, according to pro-tem hearing examiner Terrence F. McCarthy.

No fines came with the code violation, but Tooloee was ordered to remove the treehouse from its current location.

Tooloee would not comment this week on the matter, referring inquires to briefings prepared by his lawyer, Ryan Vancil.

In closing arguments before the examiner on Oct. 12, Vancil argued that the treehouse is not regulated by city code and does not require permits or variances.

He also highlighted the treehouse’s sentimental value to Tooloee’s family and the fort-like structure’s frequent use by Tooloee’s children.

Vancil’s testimony also called out city staff, charging that the code enforcement action was motivated by personal grudges.

“Since joining the City Council, and especially over the last year, Nezam has asked difficult questions and challenged proposals, projects or policies advocated by the city administration,” Vancil stated in his closing remarks.

Tooloee has played a role in “reversing major policies and questioning key projects” of certain planning staff, according to Vancil.

The enforcement action was championed by “one or more staff members…upset with (Tooloee’s) actions as a council member and his willingness to challenge or question their proposals.

“Since the city’s code enforcement occurs primarily as a result of responses to code complaints, the city’s system lends itself to being used for personal or political retaliation.”

But examiner McCarthy placed little credence in Tooloee’s arguments.

“(Tooloee) was saying he was right and the city should change their mind,” he wrote in his decision. “That was the sum and substance of his response.”

McCarthy said he was “disappointed” Tooloee did not consider moving the play structure outside the protected shoreline environment.

The examiner disputed Tooloee’s assertion that he was unfairly targeted by city staff.

“(T)here is no evidence that Mr. Tooloee was singled out for special treatment,” McCarthy wrote. “Staff should be commended for not responding to the barbs about their singling (Tooloee) out for special treatment.”

Allowing Tooloee to retain the treehouse would “set the precedent allowing similar structures throughout the waterfront area of Bainbridge Island, contrary to the provisions of (state law),” he wrote.

McCarthy also disputed island plant pathologist Olaf Ribeiro’s positive assessment of maple trees supporting the structure, saying the analysis was “biased” in Tooloee’s favor.

McCarthy agreed with the testimony of arborist Scott Baker, who found that the structure and related hole-drilling were likely damaging the support trees. McCarthy also cited Baker’s finding that the trees exhibited signs of decay and insect infestation.