People With Too Little to Do?

K

KennyFlys

Guest
Park City: Tree house must go
In violation » Officials say the structure is in violation of the land management code

Question: When is a tree house a structure that must meet municipal ordinances?Answer: When it's in Park City.
Click to expand...
This is not meant to be political. I'm just wondering... whatever happen to letting the simple things take place... like a tree house built for kids to play in? Some people sure get their panties in a wad over the most stupid things. :confused:
 
Well you notice, it isn't the city causing the fuss, it was a neighbor who started it by complaining, and so happens, the complaint is valid in context of the code so until the guy applies for a variance, the city has to rule to take it down, and they basically told him to apply for it so they can legally tell him it's ok....
 
"If [Damon] had done it in his backyard, it wouldn't have been an issue. But he flat-out violated the code."
Click to expand...

"flat-out violated" seems to be an assessment that he deliberately violated the code.

Deliberately? Probably not. I wonder how many of us have actually read and understand all of the local ordinances that may apply to areas in which we live.
 
BaltimoreBill said:
"flat-out violated" seems to be an assessment that he deliberately violated the code.

Deliberately? Probably not. I wonder how many of us have actually read and understand all of the local ordinances that may apply to areas in which we live.
Click to expand...


The way I read it "Flat Out" was an assessment that the violation was unargueable (it really and truly existed) rather than one of deliberation.
 
I thought this thread was about people with high post counts on POA...:D
 
KennyFlys said:
This is not meant to be political. I'm just wondering... whatever happen to letting the simple things take place... like a tree house built for kids to play in? Some people sure get their panties in a wad over the most stupid things.
Click to expand...

"I know of five or six other tree houses in town,and nobody has said a word," the mayor said. "If [Damon] had done it in his backyard, it wouldn't have been an issue. But he flat-out violated the code."


How does a structure in a tree come under a Land Management Code?
 
roncachamp said:
"I know of five or six other tree houses in town,and nobody has said a word," the mayor said. "If [Damon] had done it in his backyard, it wouldn't have been an issue. But he flat-out violated the code."


How does a structure in a tree come under a Land Management Code?
Click to expand...
The tree is on land? Give a politician a chance, they'll stretch the definition to meet their goal.
 
Is it really that much of a stretch to view "land management" as including
vegetation?
 
KennyFlys said:
The tree is on land? Give a politician a chance, they'll stretch the definition to meet their goal.
Click to expand...

Y'all need to read the story a little better, and read for comprehension this time. It is not the politicians causing the problem, it's a freaking neighbor. The code is what it is, it is written in black and white, and has been for some time now. The person violated the code, probably out of ignorance of the code, most likely because that was the best tree house tree. The politicians are advising him to apply for a variance even now, rather than tear it down. For politicians that is bending over backwards while another does handsprings over them, this is the Cirque d Soliel of freaking politicians. Most anywhere else they would have fined him $50,000, had the city workers take the tree house down and then billed him another $10 for removing it. Instead they said "Go apply for a variance" because until he applies for the variance, they can't grant one can they?

The people to ***** about here is nosy as-ed neighbors.
 
roncachamp said:
How does a structure in a tree come under a Land Management Code?
Click to expand...

It's very simple, the tree sits in land, and that land is regulated by the city as an easment incase they have to put in a sewer or widen the road or whatever other unforseeable future needs of the community. If someone builds a structure on that land and it stays there for X (usually 7) amount of years, then it's grandfathered in there and it can be a holy hell court battle for them to come through with whatever (they'll win of course, by why hassle with eminant domain and having that treehouse cost them $100k to tear down).

OTOH, if he applies for a variance to put that tree house in that location, when they grant the variance it will have a stipulation clause in it stating that said tree house is on a city eavsment and is subject to be torn down at the will of the city in any future projects.....".

Just follow the freakin rules.....how tough is it. If you don't want to deal with that crap, go live out on 25+ acres out in the country, then you don't have to deal with any codes or permits or what have you...
 
Henning has it correct. The issue is not the city but the neighbor who made the complaint.
Go to your local town or city hall and get a copy of the bylaws and the planning boards rules. In most cases, you'll see it isn't the town that brings issues forward but your not so friendly neighbor who writes a complaint to them to which they, by law, must respond.
The tree house is in clear violation of side setbacks BUT if the neighbor didn't complain, chances are quite good the town would not have said anything.
They, of course, now have a right to tax it.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a lawyer to understand most towns' bylaws. It does take reading them to which is enough to put one's self to sleep.
 
I saw it started with the neighbor. Hence, only "people" in the title. Just because someone complained, the city could have ignored the issue after determining it was not factor.

If the tree house is a factor in the "Setback" as they call it, so is the tree. So, ya better cut down that tree!
 
KennyFlys said:
I saw it started with the neighbor. Hence, only "people" in the title. Just because someone complained, the city could have ignored the issue after determining it was not factor.

If the tree house is a factor in the "Setback" as they call it, so is the tree. So, ya better cut down that tree!
Click to expand...

The tree is not a structure. The city cannot "ignore" it once a citizen complains about it, they cannot set that precedent. They can however "allow" it by granting the variance they told him to apply for.
 
Henning said:
The tree is not a structure. The city cannot "ignore" it once a citizen complains about it, they cannot set that precedent. They can however "allow" it by granting the variance they told him to apply for.
Click to expand...
Governments ignore things all the time... no consistency.
 
In MA at least, chapter 40 and 41a of the MGL spells out how the city or town needs to deal with written complaints. Had it been the neighbor calling to complain, they could have just ignored it. Once in writing, there is a process to follow.
The upside is the variance process is not all that hard and generally reasonable results are obtained.
Truth is, it really isn't YOUR property. You get to do only what the general state laws and local laws and rules provide.
My guess is this guy made an enemy of the neighbor who now uses any chance to harrass and intimidate. One can only hope the smuck gets it back in spades.
 
KennyFlys said:
Governments ignore things all the time... no consistency.
Click to expand...

They can only ignore it so long as no one petitions against it. If the neighbor wouldn't have complained, they would have continued to ignore it. They basically said "We don't want him to tear it down, we want him to apply for..."
If they just ignore it, then they would have to ignore the garage or Mother in Law house the neighbor builds in the set back.
 
Henning said:
Y'all need to read the story a little better, and read for comprehension this time. It is not the politicians causing the problem, it's a freaking neighbor.
Click to expand...

The freaking neighbor didn't order the treehouse removed, the city did.
 
roncachamp said:
The freaking neighbor didn't order the treehouse removed, the city did.
Click to expand...

Note that they did not yet order it removed, they told him to apply for a variance. If he does not, they have to order it removed as that is how the law reads. If the laws do not apply and see enforcement, then they are worthless, as are all laws. All you have to do is watch the complaints about moderation here and on other boards not to be mentioned to see the crap that gets stirred when you don't apply laws in what seems an equitable manner. Ant these people aren't dictators with ownership of the board. They're politicians who face re-election. There are systems in place to allow the tree house to stand, they told him to avail himself of them, I can't imagine them being able to do anything else for the guy.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Note that they did not yet order it removed, they told him to apply for a variance. If he does not, they have to order it removed as that is how the law reads.
Click to expand...

How do you know how the law reads? Did someone post a link to the law? I saw only a link to a newspaper report.
 
roncachamp said:
How do you know how the law reads? Did someone post a link to the law? I saw only a link to a newspaper report.
Click to expand...

Since the legal aspect wasn't contested, and the issue is one common to most suburban areas worldwide, I'm taking it at face value that the setback ordinance is as advertised.
 
Henning said:
Since the legal aspect wasn't contested, and the issue is one common to most suburban areas worldwide, I'm taking it at face value that the setback ordinance is as advertised.
Click to expand...

I think you're assuming too much.
 
Until annexation, which comes sooner than you think.

Henning said:
It's very simple, the tree sits in land, and that land is regulated by the city as an easment incase they have to put in a sewer or widen the road or whatever other unforseeable future needs of the community. If someone builds a structure on that land and it stays there for X (usually 7) amount of years, then it's grandfathered in there and it can be a holy hell court battle for them to come through with whatever (they'll win of course, by why hassle with eminant domain and having that treehouse cost them $100k to tear down).

OTOH, if he applies for a variance to put that tree house in that location, when they grant the variance it will have a stipulation clause in it stating that said tree house is on a city eavsment and is subject to be torn down at the will of the city in any future projects.....".

Just follow the freakin rules.....how tough is it. If you don't want to deal with that crap, go live out on 25+ acres out in the country, then you don't have to deal with any codes or permits or what have you...
Click to expand...
 
roncachamp said:
Please post that freakin rule.
Click to expand...

You ought to be able to find it here:
Park City Land Management Code.

There are various setback requirements listed depending on which neighborhood you live in and what type of property it is, but they all seem to have setback rules in place. I didn't see anywhere where anyone was disputing the veracity of the code, just the application of it.
 
Henning said:
You ought to be able to find it here:
Park City Land Management Code.

There are various setback requirements listed depending on which neighborhood you live in and what type of property it is, but they all seem to have setback rules in place. I didn't see anywhere where anyone was disputing the veracity of the code, just the application of it.
Click to expand...

You mean you haven't found it already? Your previous message was just a wild ass guess?
 
Geeze, someone read the code. It's 15 feet.

It's a lot of overblown garbage. There's no way in San Francisco I'd build inside a city like this. It was bad enough owning a town home in a little town back in Georgia.
 
KennyFlys said:
There's no way in San Francisco I'd build inside a city like this.
Click to expand...
It's not just the city. I live in what passes for the country and I remember being out there on my empty lot with the builder trying to site my house. There were certain setbacks we had to meet, both from the adjacent lots and from the street.
 
Everskyward said:
It's not just the city. I live in what passes for the country and I remember being out there on my empty lot with the builder trying to site my house. There were certain setbacks we had to meet, both from the adjacent lots and from the street.
Click to expand...
I can understand setbacks but you should see some of the requirements they place on homes. One was limiting bay windows to no more than ten feet wide and extending no more than two feet from the wall.

By that rule, one can't build a room with the entire wall of glass and cantilevered seating along that "wall." It gets well beyond over-control.
 
KennyFlys said:
I can understand setbacks but you should see some of the requirements they place on homes. One was limiting bay windows to no more than ten feet wide and extending no more than two feet from the wall.
Click to expand...
Building codes are like that. I recently had a basement finished. The handrail for the stairs leading to the basement had been there since the house was built 16 years ago, and had presumably been seen by the county building inspector at the time. This time when it came down to the final inspection, the inspector said that the handrail needed to be raised about 3 inches in order to meet code. Instead of 37 inches it needed to be 40 inches or something like that. The builder and I both said that he had not touched the the handrail and that it had been there originally. No dice. He had to move it. I also learned other things about building codes in the process. This is just one example. :rolleyes:
 
Everskyward said:
It's not just the city. I live in what passes for the country and I remember being out there on my empty lot with the builder trying to site my house. There were certain setbacks we had to meet, both from the adjacent lots and from the street.
Click to expand...


Uh....sorry, but if you are on a "lot", by definition, you aren't in the country....
 
Everskyward said:
Building codes are like that. I recently had a basement finished. The handrail for the stairs leading to the basement had been there since the house was built 16 years ago, and had presumably been seen by the county building inspector at the time. This time when it came down to the final inspection, the inspector said that the handrail needed to be raised about 3 inches in order to meet code. Instead of 37 inches it needed to be 40 inches or something like that. The builder and I both said that he had not touched the the handrail and that it had been there originally. No dice. He had to move it. I also learned other things about building codes in the process. This is just one example. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


When I built on the ranch, no codes, permits, nothing. Took my stack of drill stem and put in the posts and started welding. By the time I was done, I had a building nothing was taking down.
 
Everskyward said:
Building code inspectors are like that.
Click to expand...


There, fixed it for you. I do some project management and occasionally oversee commercial construction and have to walk through multi million dollar buildings with local code enforcement guys. They can make your life MISERABLE for whatever reason they want. They can always find something. I just nod my head and say yes sir. :rolleyes:
 
Everskyward said:
It's country enough for me. I'm not a survivalist...
Click to expand...

But you're actually still in suburbia, therefor have relegated yourself to codes and inspectors and the world of permits. Usually, if you have more than 25 acres, you get rid of all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top