I am so conflicted by this story. the libertarian in me feels one way the person who wants certain standards followed feels another. looks like a cool place either way (to visit…not live in) what do you think?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-treehouse-grandma-shawnee-chasser-keeps-up-fight-for-home/
Whatever floats her boat, I say. The only legal issue I see is that if she gets injured in her treehouse as a result of structural failure she could use some form of tax money to pay for medical bills (medicaid, etc).
good point , I doubt she has a platinum ppo ,however I think she is at least 65 so she probably has medicare. either way she definitely marches to her own drummer and that part I like.
I think the house is cool. Around here it would be regulated both by local zoning codes and the state building code. I think most towns would allow her to have it as an accessory structure as long as it doesn’t have cooking facilities. If it does, she’d have to be in a two family zone or get a variance. (Unlikely to fly.) The building code issues are important. It has to be structurally safe. You don’t want it flying away and hitting someone if there is a hurricane. Or falling down because it isn’t attached safely.
There have actually been a few cases around here where children’s treehouses that got too elaborate got in trouble.
If the city just found the tree house after 25 years, then it apparently hasn’t caused any problems. It appears to be on private land that she owns. As long as she can bring electrical and plumbing up to code so it doesn’t start a fire or have leaking sewage, then I say they need to find a way around it. That probably won’t happen.
takeitallin, bureaucrats do not try and find their way around things…they look for issues and make them worse.
It depends. We’ve got one of each in our building department.
Generally I find that the building inspectors just want things to be legal. I find that more often than not if they can find a way to interpret the rules in your favor they will, but often their hands are tied.
It sounds as if they were turning a blind eye to it until the tenant made a formal complaint that couldn’t be ignored. I think their obvious concern is that she will eventually cease living in it and it might be rented to a third party.
There was a bad apartment fire in Portland within the last year in which a number of people died. The setup was not according to code, including means of escape and alarms, etc. A bunch of young people sharing a house. Everything is harmless…until it isn’t.
What concerns me about this story is the building department ordering it torn down without even waiting to see if it could be brought up to code. When it comes to safety, things like wiring and plumbing and the like are important, if the treehouse was structurally unsafe, same thing.
The problem is building departments also are political, where for example they harass someone with a technicality because other people don’t like the way people have their house (for example, if others in the neighborhood decided this lady’s treehouse was ‘ruining property values’ and the building department was looking for some reason to tear it down (not saying that in this case, using this as a hypothetical). Hopefully they can find a way to bring this up to code and be able to preserve it, unlike many people I tend to cherish oddballs doing their own thing.
Oh, I do too. If it were up to me I’d let her have at it, as long as she isn’t negatively impacting anyone else.
The house next to us was bought by a speculator. He is letting his sister live at the house with BIL until they buy another place. The sister is claustrophobic and living with BIL in a tent in the back yard.
I have never had anyone else in my neighborhood live in a tent long term. It’s interesting watching them put up a light in the back yard every night as they prepare to sleep.
If you read the article, the neighbors didn’t complain about the treehouse, they complained about the “campers” that she had living in the backyard. It’s a single family neighborhood, and I would not want a campground in the middle of it, either.
Unfortunately, instead of getting rid of the campground, they’re going after the treehouse. She could probably win a lawsuit that called the treehouse installation art rather than a domicile, but she’ll need lawyers to do it (which she has).
It’s fine to be weird, but your weird liberty ends when it encroaches on other’s pursuit of happiness-the campers are what did that.
According to the article, it was not a neighbor who complained, but a “disgruntled former tenant.”
I’m not reading it again, but my take was that the tenant (renting the house of the tree house woman’s deceased son) was disgruntled that she was also renting out camping space on the property. If this was unexpected, I can understand the tenant would be aggravated. If campers were there when the tenant rented the house, I am much less sympathetic.
If she hadn’t been renting out parts of her property, it seems unlikely there would have been complaints. And she could have claimed she lived in the house, if inspectors showed up.
She might need to rent out parts to pay bills–food, utilities and taxes, for instance.
^I assumed that was the case. Once that happens though, you lose some of your options. imho
You will lose options if you don’t pay bills as well. Folks could have complained regardless and caused an investigation, depending on the situation. I’m not a fan of extra people renting or camping in my neighborhood either. Once things come to the attention of authorities, it can’t. E ignored.
Here’s the first thing I think about whenever I see these situations.
Where is she going to the bathroom? She claims she goes into the main house. That seems strange when it is rented to a tenant. She really enters their house in the middle of the night? I would possibly need that bathroom twice in the night.
Where is she cleaning up? It says in a pond. That pond does not drain, there is no robust filtration system. I’m guessing dirty water from the kitchen sink is probably not connected to a proper drain either.
Then you add campers to the sanitation issues and you’ve got a mess!
I have no problems with living in a treehouse but it better be connected to a proper sewer system:)
Just because someone wants to do something with their property doesn’t mean they can. I might want to build a ‘little house’ in my yard but it isn’t allowed by ordinance. My brother built a 3 car garage at his house and wanted to put a room in the ‘attic’ but it isn’t allowed. If he did it anyway and the city didn’t find out for 10 years, should his violation be waived?
Problems caused by properties not up to code? Fire, accidents, sewerage, ground water contamination. What if there was a hurricane (it is Miami) and her ‘house’ just became plywood soaring through the neighborhood?
My first thought on her bathing in the pond was that parasite people get from fresh water in FL!