Frequently Asked Questions 3

The city does not think that a treehouse is an appropriate use of residential property?

According to the city's decision to deny us conditional use, they do not feel that a treehouse is an appropriate use of residential property.

Do other cities take treehouses to court?

It is very rare for cities to send treehouses to court. In fact, it is so rare, we cannot find a single treehouse whose fate was decided by a judge. Most cities work with their citizens. Tearing down a treehouse is very bad for public relations and hurts the positive image of a city. It is especially bad when there were so many options for the city to save the treehouse including grandfathering, special exception, and the simple fact that treehouses are not even mentioned in the ordinance. Most cities do not send treehouses to court because treehouses are not even mentioned or regulated in their ordinance. Other Cities work to keep Treehouses

The city can only tell me what to do in the front yard, right?

Wrong. The city regulates your backyard and any area that can be seen from any side. The ordinance does not specifically list what is considered accessory use. Consequently, accessory use is subject to their interpretation.

The Mayor said that city officials have offered three times to get volunteers to help the Welches move the treehouse to the back yard. Is that true?

No. The city attorney only offered once to have volunteers move the Treehouse. This offer was only made AFTER the Circuit Court hearing in a desperate attempt to evoke last minute sympathy from the Judge. Would you want to be responsible for volunteers selected by this Mayor? When the Welches wanted to know who would be liable for the "volunteers" insurance, the city refused to answer; and the city dropped its offer immediately. It was never offered again. It was never offered in the city minutes, in the transcripts or as a compromise to going to the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court. The Mayor is lying about this offer in a desperate attempt to make the city look like it was willing to compromise. This offer is specious at best.

The Mayor keeps saying that the Welches violated the ordinance? Is this true?

According to the circuit court's ruling

, the city violated the ordinance. The city's actions were declared arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious. The Welches were acquitted of all charges.

The Mayor keeps saying that hundreds of people are complaining? Is this true?

No. According to official public records, only one complaint was registered. This one and only complaint was issued by someone who lived outside of the city limits. To date, the Mayor has not produced any evidence of anymore complaints. No Clinton resident has registered an official complaint about the Treehouse. In contrast, hundreds of residents have vocally registered support for the treehouse by signing a petition and through passionate testimony expressed during the public hearing. During the city's public hearing, the vote was unanimous to keep the treehouse. This support is officially registered in the public record.

Has anything good come about as a result of this?

Definitely. Our neighborhood has become much closer. We now know our neighbors personally and meet often. We have really enjoyed meeting so many interesting people. People who fought in World War II, an architect, a pharmacist, grandmothers, the former mayor, a top educator who just awarded personally by Laura Bush, a dean from MC and many, many others who support the treehouse. We have met so many great and wonderful people from Clinton, Jackson, and the surrounding areas. If the Treehouse is wrong, why do so many intelligent, level-headed people support it? Also, our children have learned about government, politics, public relations, the importance of friends, and the news. What an education this has been!

How did the Supreme Court rule?

The complete ruling is available online

. In summary, the Supreme Court found three reasons the City may not apply the Ordinance to require removal of the treehouse from their front yard. First, they agreed with the Circuit Court's holding that the doctrine of laches applied to the facts of this case, and the City is equitably estopped from requiring removal of the tree house, based upon the City's interpretation of Section 401.05 of its Ordinance. They also found Section 401.05 of the Ordinance to be unconstitutionally vague, as applied. Finally, they found the City violated Section 2411.03 of its own Ordinance, which states, inter alia: "Only in case of a tie vote may an application be forwarded to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen 'without recommendation."