By Jimmie E. Gates
jgates@clarionledger.com

Mary and Scot Welch of Clinton contend a $5,000 treehouse in their front yard does not violate any city ordinance and should not have to be torn down.

		File photo / The Clarion-Ledger   Children around the neighborhood gather in and around the treehouse in the front yard of Scott and Mary Welch's home. The city of Clinton wants the Welchs to tear down the treehouse, which they began building in 1997.

But the Board of Alderman argue it is an illegal accessory building.

Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green heard both arguments Monday on an appeal and is expected to rule by next week.

"I will base my decision upon whether the city acted arbitrarily and on a whim," Green said.

Green listened to more than 30 minutes of arguments from the Welches' attorney and the city's attorney.

"I think our attorney proved to the judge that the ordinance is unenforceable, said Scot Welch, wearing a T-shirt with the words "Save Our Treehouse."

Clinton Mayor Rosemary Aultman said the city will appeal if Green rules in favor of the Welches.

"We just want to be able to enforce city ordinances," Aultman said.

The Welches have spent more than $10,000 fighting the city's effort to have them remove the treehouse.

More than 700 Clinton residents have signed a petition supporting efforts to keep the treehouse. The controversy attracted CBS Evening News last August.

Construction of the treehouse began in early 1997 under the city's old ordinance, the Welches' attorney, Steven Smith said.

Neither the city's old zoning ordinances or revised zoning ordinances have a category specific for a treehouse.

Mary Welch in 1997 went to the city's permit department and was told by an official there that a permit to build the elaborate structure in a tree in the front yard was not needed, Smith said. The building inspector is now dead.

City officials took notice in 2002 after someone wrote them a letter complaining about the the treehouse.

Clinton's zoning administrator ruled the treehouse at 218 Kitchings Drive was an accessory building, which, according to city zoning ordinances, is restricted from a home's front or side yard.

The Board of Aldermen upheld the decision. The board also denied a request for a conditional use permit, a special exemption or a nonconforming use permit.

"It's our position the city cannot come back five years later after the fact," Smith said. "It would do unjust harm if they are to now tear it down."

Ken Dreher, attorney for the city, said the goal is to "prevent people from building something in a front yard that detracts from property values."

"What if it would have been an ugly treehouse?" he asked.