| Why don't the Welches
just
move the treehouse to the back yard? |
| The
treehouse cannot be moved to the backyard without destroying
it. It is built to withstand tornado winds. It
is constructed above code and employs hurricane straps, metal
bracing, and 12" carriage bolts. Also, Each corner
and angle of the treehouse conforms perfectly with the 6 sweet
gum trees. It has been in place for over five years. The
trees have grown around the foundation. If it were
even possible, moving the treehouse would cost thousands because
its weight would require expensive forklift equipment.
Four of these beautiful sweet gum trees would have to be cut
down at great expense without damaging the treehouse or
house. Once the treehouse was removed from the tree, it
would no longer be a treehouse and could then be subjected to
new rules and regulations. I could possibly have to repeat
this whole scenario since the ordinance regulates backyard usage
as well. |
|
| What does tearing
down the treehouse involve? |
| For
one thing, several hundred people have said that they would come
to the Treehouse to prevent its destruction. Tearing down
the Treehouse would certainly invoke a large media presence and
community outrage. Tearing
down the treehouse would place a peron's life and limb at risk.
It would require the use of chain saws. Sawdust from pressure
treated wood is dangerous to breathe or touch. Children
playing in the area would be exposed. Debris falling from
the top could inadvertently injure children playing below.
After all, the children are used to playing in the area.
Children could possibly step on nails or be splintered.
The trees and landscaping would be damaged. The cost of
hauling the debris and landfill fees would be costly. The
area would be unsightly. |
|
| What is this costing
the Welches? |
| The
cost of defending this treehouse has already cost the family
thousands. The Welches have to pay for the public hearing, legal
expenses and fees. They also must prepare and file several
pages of paperwork. In a way, the Welches have already been punished. Even the cost of just giving up would be
enormous because of the investment in the treehouse and the
costs of tearing it down. The penalties of losing this
fight involve fines up to $100 a day that the treehouse
exists. Emotionally the costs are even higher. It
has affected the children's schooling. They have proof of
this with the children's test scores taken before and after the
city's charges. These costs cannot be measured in terms of
dollars and last a lifetime. It has ruined their summer
plans and taken time from their children. |
|
| How much is this
costing the taxpayers? |
| The
costs to the taxpayers can exceed $15,000. The city must
employ the services of an attorney and file several pages
of paperwork. The opportunity costs are
enormous. This money could be better spent adding
playground equipment to Kids Town or improving the parks and
recreation areas. The majority of the taxpayers don't even
want the city to spend one dime tearing down this treehouse. |
|
| The City is calling
this Treehouse an accessory building? What is the
definition of an accessory building? |
|
The
Clinton government has called the treasured, neighborhood tree
house an accessory building.
This tree house is a symbol of a parent’s love for
their children. The
ordinance defines an accessory building as any detached
structure or use which is subordinate or incidental to the main
building. The dictionary defines subordinate as inferior or less
important. This
tree house is important to the house, the children and the
community. If this
tree house was subordinate, why have hundreds come to the home
to sign a petition to keep it?
Why has the neighborhood gathered several times to
support it? Why
have the networks, magazines, and newspapers reported on it?
Why has the public’s outcry against this charge
exceeded every other city issue?
Accessory
buildings are incidental. Incidental
means happening by chance or unplanned.
This tree house is not incidental. It was well planned
and designed. The
Welches sought a permit from the city and were told that we did
not need one. Current
government officials agreed that the old ordinance would not
have required a permit for this tree house.
Two building inspectors approved work at the house after
seeing the tree house. The
city was aware of its construction several years ago and led us
to believe it was ok.
Finally,
the tree house is not detached.
The ordinance does not define attached.
It matches the house.
How can this tree house be called an accessory building?
Everyone understands that the spirit of the ordinance is
to keep ugly sheds and utility buildings from the front yard.
No one would spend thousands to keep an ugly shed.
This tree house is worth the fight to us. |
| |
| Has
it increased the property value? |
| Several
people have stated that they want to buy the house because of
the tree house. In
this respect, it has added property value.
The neighborhood overwhelmingly wants it to remain and
considers it a beautiful addition to the area. The last
two homes for sale in the neighborhood sold in just five days. Cars have not even sold
that fast. The homes in the neighborhood are in high
demand. |
| |
| Does
the ordinance have provisions to keep the treehouse? |
| The tree house was built
and granted permission under the old ordinance.
The new ordinance states it is the intent of this
ordinance to permit nonconformities (under the old ordinance) to
continue. The word
“tree house” is not mentioned in either ordinance.
Setting a precedent of defining tree houses as accessory
buildings may cause the city problems in the future when the
next tree house built exceeds 1000 square feet.
(This actually happened when one city hastily defined its
first tree house as playground equipment.)
Amend the ordinance and clear the confusion. The new
ordinance states that it should be permitted and grandfathered.
The city issues variances routinely.
The ordinance has provisions for conditional use for
exceptions like this tree house.
That is the law. |
|
| Could the City of Clinton face consequences
by defining treehouses as accessory building in court? |
The City of Clinton
should not worry anymore about treehouses being built in the front
yard. The new ordinance requires a permit and site plan before
construction.
The true concern for the city would be to define a treehouse as an
accessory building in court. If the city of Clinton sets the
precedent of defining a treehouse as an accessory building, then it is
possible that the next, much larger treehouse built with a full kitchen,
bathroom, bedroom and living room would have to called an accessory
building too. Accessory buildings have much less stringent
guidelines than a house. Amend the ordinance and clear the confusion. |
|
| What
about liability? |
| State
Farm has insured our property and looked at the treehouse.
They are fully aware of it. I have personally talked to
Neil King. We are insured. |
