‘Had no problems for 4 years,’ says homeowner forced to pay $1,600 or remove yard decorations – he reviewed code beforehand – The US Sun

A TREE home is at the center of a heated lawsuit after local code enforcement ordered its removal.

Joe O’Neal built a treehouse for his three children next to a mature oak tree on his Georgia property for the entire community to enjoy.

two

Using wood and tools to create a neighborhood retreat in their subdivision near the local elementary school, the wooden platform is nestled among azaleas, irises and a dogwood tree on the corner lot of O’Neal’s.

Since then, the treehouse has grown into and has become a popular hangout for neighborhood and classroom kids, schoolchildren fresh off the bus with their kids, dog walkers, and even neighbors out for a walk.

It has also been the centerpiece of neighborhood parties and a selling point for new residents moving into the subdivision.

But after four years, this beloved part of the community became embroiled in a legal battle when Tucker Code Enforcement ordered its removal.

The O’Neal family, along with their supportive neighbors, were determined to try to keep the treehouse, they told the local news outlet. Decaturizebecame a cornerstone of their community.

“On any given afternoon, you will find people and pets in our yard,” said Joe and Crystal O’Neal.

Despite its popularity, the city of Tucker has issued several code violations against the treehouse.

A notice of violation, which the O’Neals found taped to their front door, cited the treehouse as an accessory structure in the front yard of a corner lot.

The city code lists accessory structures such as garages, storage sheds and recreational facilities such as swimming pools and tennis courts.

However, it does not explicitly mention tree houses.

“It’s almost as if the code purposely left out tree houses,” Crystal said.

The O’Neals say they reviewed the code before building the treehouse in 2018, finding no mention of treehouses, although the code does reference play structures and equipment, which are permitted.

City Planner Kylie Thomas explained that while play equipment is permitted in residential zones, they are classified as “accessory structures” and must meet city requirements.

However, the specific sections on accessory structures and corner lots do not yet address tree houses.

Residents and the O’Neals say they find the city’s code enforcement process confusing and inconsistent.

Other families in the subdivision also received similar citations for other types of play equipment they considered permitted.

Jo McPhail was issued a warning for “storing building materials” during a renovation.

Peter Bidhendi was cited for having a playset and trampoline in his backyard, another corner lot.

Bidhendi, who also received citations for accessory structures, said he was told to request a variance or move his play equipment to his backyard, which is sloped and narrow.

He complied with the orders, but said he is still frustrated by the lack of clarity and consistency in enforcement.

The O’Neals are also perplexed by how the code is being enforced.

In January, they received a notice of violation listing several items, including a treehouse, hammock, slack line and baby swing.

After removing all the smaller items, they were later cited specifically for the treehouse.

“He has been part of our community for four years. We know a lot of our neighbors because of it,” Joe said.

“Now someone comes in, knows the code and quotes everything they see.”

In March, city planner Thomas informed the O’Neals that if the treehouse had been built before 2016, it could be purchased, as the relevant ordinances were adopted that year.

However, changes made to the code in 2021 regarding corner lots have further exacerbated an already confusing situation.

Facing a costly variance request of more than $1,600 and uncertain results, the O’Neals appeared in court in March and are scheduled for another appearance on June 22.

Despite the difficult battle, they remain committed to fighting for their tree house.

“We had no problems for four years,” Joe said.

“If Tucker is going to impose treehouses like that, it has to be written that way, so everyone knows in advance.”

“If we all just quietly move our stuff and do what they say, it won’t get better,” Crystal added.

“And it won’t be a fun place to live.”

During the Tucker City Council meeting on April 11, District 2 Councilwoman Noelle Monferdini mentioned that the city is reviewing its code regarding accessory structures, suggesting that possible changes could come in the future.

It remains to be seen whether the O’Neals case influenced these comments.

The O’Neals, supported by their community, continue to advocate for clarity and fairness in code enforcement, hoping that their fight will lead to better regulations for everyone in Tucker.