It is not a debate about supervision, grass, cuteness, swings,
electricity, parenthood, liability, Worldcom, or even neighborhood protection.
Please,
someone, show us where tree houses are defined as accessory buildings
in the ordinance. The planning and zoning board would not rule
it as an accessory building and referred to it as a tree house. For starters, it is not incidental,
subordinate, or detached. Tree houses have differing qualities
that are not covered by the accessory building ordinance. A tree house is a tree house is a tree house.
If all tree houses are accessory buildings, then the ordinance must
state it specifically. What is not stated specifically could be
debated for years.
In the words of Ann Macke, "If a house,
albeit a house in a tree, and its use as a recreational house for the
children is not the correct use of 'residential' property, pray tell,
what is?" Please, what is so threatening about a tree
house? They should be celebrated. They should be in
everyone's neighborhood. Must everything that we do be
regulated? Isn't that the opposite of freedom?
