Watch Live: Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Business

Montana Family Fighting City Over Zoning Ordinances in Order to Keep…Its Treehouse

Nov. 26, 2012 9:46am Becket Adams

The Olsons Take on Billings City Officials to Keep Their Treehouse

(Photo: screen shot from Billings Gazette video)

A Billings, MT., family is fighting to keep their treehouse after officials cited it for violating city zoning regulations, the Billings Gazette reports.

Seriously.

“Logan and his parents, Scott and Kacey Olson, his grandparents and his brother Dillon, 12, built the elaborate treehouse in the front yard of the Olsons’ house,” the Gazette notes. “By late June, Logan and Dillon had a solidly built, 17-foot-high, 80-square-foot treehouse with a deck on three sides.”

Logan Olson (Photo: screen shot from Billings Gazette video)

The treehouse quickly became a popular hangout for Logan and his friends. But it wasn’t long until the Olsons started getting grief from the city for their arboreal domicile.

“[S]omebody lodged a complaint with the city’s Building Division because the Olsons hadn’t obtained a building permit,” the Gazette reports. “As it turned out, they didn’t need one. Nicole Cromwell, the city’s zoning coordinator, said permits are unnecessary for buildings of less than 120 square feet.”

You can watch a video tour of the tree house by clicking on the above photo.

Okay, so then what’s the problem?

“Although a ‘structure’ technically is a building on the ground, the treehouse does have four wooden support beams, which qualifies it as an ‘accessory structure,’” the report explains, “and zoning rules say accessory structures have to be set back at least 20 feet from the property line. The closest post is 5 feet, 6 inches from the front property line.”

But the Olsons weren’t going to take this lying down. A lot of time and effort had been put into that structure. Logan and his brother Dillon knocked on doors and collected 61 signatures of people “supporting a variance for their treehouse.”

(Photo: screen shot from Billings Gazette video)

“If you think it’s a good idea that we should keep our treehouse, you should sign this,” the boys would say to people they were soliciting signatures from.

Logan’s mother, Kacey, has formally requested from the city Board of Adjustment a variance from the setback requirements.

“She explained in her letter that they couldn’t build a treehouse in the backyard because the only tree there is an evergreen. And though they unknowingly violated the law, she said, most of their neighbors don’t seem to mind,” the Gazette notes.

Cromwell, the city zoning coordinator, says all code complaints must to be investigated no matter how small they may seem.

“In this case, she said, seeking a variance is probably the easiest way to resolve the issue,” the report notes.

Cromwell notes that a variance will probably be granted as variances for similar “accessory structures” have probably already been granted in that neighborhood.

“It’s not out of character for the neighborhood,” she said.

The Olsons will appear before the city Board of Adjustment on Dec. 5.

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (80)

AmericaMustBeFree
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 12:09pm
Strangest tree house I have ever seen.. a tree house does not have legs that reach to the ground.. not one I have ever seen!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- louise
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 12:38pm
  My husband built our son a treehouse in the back of our propertythat was on stilts. Very similar to this one. Our son and his friends LOVED playing and sleeping out in it and prentending to be soldiers “defending” it. Good, clean, fun times for our son…and his friends and cousins.
  Now my husband needs to build a new one for our grandsons since we had to tear down the old one.
  
  I wonder why they put this in the front yard though? It would be more appropriate in the back. But just my personal preference.
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 1:09pm
  The government GRINCH is out of his cage again!!
  
  Report this comment
- SteelWolf
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 9:18pm
  This one has Legs that touch the ground.
  
  http://techabsorbed.com/News/Unique-Projects/The-Making-of-a-BattleMech.html
  Yes, someone built a giant BattleMech! Watch it stomp around on his neighbors houses and lay waste to gas stations with LRM racks! Okay maybe it can’t do all that ( It’s a treehouse ), but he did build a giant “MadCat” BattleMech. Check it out! Lots of pictures! Sweet!
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiaku
  Posted on November 27, 2012 at 1:18pm
  How… How do you derive that placing something so obstructive in the front yard of a small housing development WOULDN’T be an issue? Where did this kids two parents have to grow up to NOT think this could be a problem?
  Stupid stupid stupid.
  
  Report this comment
- Rick Steele
  Posted on November 27, 2012 at 3:50pm
  That tree-house would be a great place for Grandma to live! Oh, wait, that’s another story here on the Blaze.
  
  Report this comment
RayinTX
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:48am
You have a right to put what you want in your yard, but there should be some consideration to you neighbor. It is an eye sore and they may not want to live next to it. It is right on the property line there from the picture. Put in the backyard. It looks like it doesn’t need trees.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- michaelmoron
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 2:14pm
  You’re in Texas? You sound Like you should live in NYC or San Francisco.
  
  Eyesore? Don’t look at it.
  
  Maybe your face is a eyesore to the public. You then, would be considerate not to ever leave your house.
  
  Maybe the color of your house is an eyesore. The BOTTOM LINE is that the ehouse does not
  Violate your inherent Rights !!!!
  
  So get over it.
  
  It is your type of mindset that has destroyed this Country.
  
  Being “OFFENDED” is NOT a VIOLATION of your RIGHTS !!!!
  
  I suggest people hire unlicensed contractors (with good reputations)
  DO NOT pull PERMITS !!!! Permits mean “permission”
  
  These city engineer clowns and bureacrats make companies jump through their hoops.
  These complying companies are regulated and licensed and they still Su@k !!!!
  
  Look at the Light poles down your street I bet they are leaning over some about to fall.
  They were installed by City contractors under City regulations and still are pathetic.
  
  I am a Contractor that could install poles that don’t lean, WITHOUT their required concrete
  foundation.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 2:32pm
  Sorry if I was a little harsh, since you acknowlegde that they have the right to build it.
  
  That whole “eyesore” thing hits a nerve with me.
  
  These pictures were taken in winter obviously and it appears that the Treehouse will be partially covered in spring. Also, they could match the color scheme and exterior to match the real house, to appease the neighbors, if they wish to do so.
  
  Bottom line is that the city can regulate your “Private Property” because it is not yours.
  
  You lease it from your State Corporation (i.e. “State of Texas”).
  They call it “Property taxes” to keep you in the dark.
  Look on your deed to your property. It clearly states that you are a “tenant”.
  
  Property taxes and Federal Income Tax came in 1913 when our “U.S.Government” (corporation)
  signed the contract with the Federal Reserve PRIVATE BANK (the Federal Reserve act)
  
  Report this comment
- jwoop66
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 5:16pm
  To Mike moron,
  
  I don’t want the govt involved, but it is an eyesore. If I lived next to them I’d be pissed as it started to deteriorate and the kids no longer play in it. Furthermore, I’d probably go out side one night and take a chain saw to those legs if I was trying to sell my house. Don’t tell me what what to be offended about. Just don’t drag the govt in to it. Put crap like that in the back yard. **** like this “treehouse” just invites democrats and victims in to the neighborhood.
  
  Report this comment
- jenk99
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 8:01pm
  Who determines whether or not something is an eye sore? Will there be a list of criteria that the rest of us can agree on? Do we get to vote on who will be deciding whether or not something is an eye sore? Can we then start applying the eye sore criteria for other areas? I find some vehicles to be eye sores, but they are new and shiney and parked in my neighbor’s driveway and I have too see that hideously ugly vehicle every day. The other is the one neighbor who literally bakes a cake on her face every time she applies makeup. She gets the mail and leaves her house a lot.
  
  My point is….Where do we draw the line for eye sores?
  
  Report this comment
- lowerclassrepublican
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:15pm
  Come on guys! Saying they have the right on something like this is what makes people think your a wacko! The thing is almost in the street. even if it looked like part of the house the city would never allow it even 30 years ago. Use some common sense.
  
  Report this comment
- RayinTX
  Posted on November 27, 2012 at 10:26am
  Michaelmoron it is nice to know that you cannot have an intelligent conversation without having to resort to harsh dialog. As I said they have everyright to put up what they want, but lets have some consideration to others. I do have rights as they do, but what happens when their right interfer with my rights. What if I wanted to sell my house and I couldn’t because no one wanted to buy my house because of their rights to build the tree house in front yard. Is their rights more important than my rights. This is the unfortunate reason why we have laws and codes.
  
  Report this comment
fancynancy
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:41am
I would not be happy about this “structure’ if it was on neighboring property. Too bad the people building it were not considerate of their neighbors. I say take it down and put it in the back yard. We can’t always do what we want when it impacts others and this certainly impacts their neighbors. Who wants to look at that everyday. With the supports on the ground it no longer qualifies as a “tree house”
in my mind and therefore should be subject to zoning laws, even if it was built “for the children”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- apbt55
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 1:07pm
  hypocrite, I bet you claim to support the constitution too. People like you are the reason agenda 21 is being implemented so easily. It being private property, the owner has the right to do with it what they please. The whole zoning thing is completely unconstitutional. I signed no contract allowing said infringement of my rights to my private property. Please do yourself a favor and realize what you are saying is a communist idea. So long as the person does not physically damage your property with what they do, you have no constitutional authority to stop them.
  
  Report this comment
- K Clark
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 4:25pm
  APBT55,
  You may think zoning ordinances are unconstitutional but they aren’t. I ended up paying $80k+ in lawyer fees trying to prove otherwise but lost. Until you get the courts on our side, zoning is constitutional, no matter what we think.
  
  Report this comment
- fancynancy
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 5:02pm
  APBT55- zoning laws are present in every city and for a good reason. This so called tree house is one of them. The people who built it are inconsiderate of their neighbors which in and of itself is no crime. But the zoning laws make it illegal. If they win a variance, ok. But if I were a neighbor, I would not want them to be able to leave it up because if I decide to sell my house, that god-awful tree house will make it harder to sell MY house. Lots of people are inconsiderate of their neighbors. Hence noise laws and animal restriction laws and set backs and easements and more. Who wants to live next to someone who grows a bunch of farm animals in their urban./suburban yard. 1 pig, fine – it cpould be your pet. 2 pigs- move to a farm. Same with chickens, horses, whatever. Who wants to live next to the wild party people without a possible recourse to have them quiet down after a certain hour of the night. Sorry, it;s not agenda 21, it’s common sense and since so many people these days don;t have any, we need laws and statutes to tell people who to behave.
  
  Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:30am
Both lame and stupid, but that doesn’t appear to be a tree house. I am pretty sure those are built IN THE TREES!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Orwellian States
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:25am
The thing that bothers me about these stories is that the complainers get to be anonymous. Someone has to take some grief because of their complaint. Why should they not be open to taking some grief in turn. Newspapers generally don’t print anonymous letters ….. anonymous complaints should be ignored.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NDPINDNT
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:21am
I’m sorry, I just can’t support the cause for the kids. I wouldn’t want to look at it next door on the property line from my house. And it would bring down property values too. There should have been more thought put into where to place it before it went up. If the city government allows this, then everyone will get away with building next to property lines. It happened in my last town. The city lost control of enforcing their ordinances. Sheds popped up all over town next to property lines.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rational Man
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:05am
Parasitic refugees from California have made Montana unbearable to live in.
Sure, it’s pretty. But the progressives have taken over and are thick as fleas.
Making it unbearable, for me anyway……
I’m making my last stand in Wyoming!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
1HonestInjun
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:54am
Legally It’s called an attractive nuisance. I had a hill on my property that kids like to ski on in the winter. It was a liability on my insurance and I couldn’t give kids permission to play on it. If they
would injure themselves and I gave permission to play it increased my liability. I felt sorry for the
kids but couldn’t chance the exposure.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:28am
  This is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens the hold zoning law marxist movement is a design to remove the core of what being American is suppose to be about…..our individualism……The Bill of Rights guarantees a Citizen the right to jury trial in cases where the values is more than twenty dollars…..I suggest the home owner exercise that right …..and let 12 Citizens decide his case instead of bowing to a law passed by beaucratic marxist.
  
  Report this comment
- apbt55
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 1:13pm
  Exactly naughtycal, funny how these supposed constitutional conservatives nit pick what right people should have. They sound like commies themselves. This is why we need to fight these people at the local level.
  
  Report this comment
Hoax And Chains
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:42am
Pay taxes to keep land you purchase only to have governments still tell you what you can and cannot do according to the will of politicians. What a country!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
txannie
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:35am
I believe I should be able to build anything I want on my property, but I have to be realistic. Putting that treehouse in the front yard gives access to anyone walking by to try to climb it. I don’t want to lose everything I’ve worked for because I have to pay a lawyer to fight the tresspasser/vandal/dumb kid/whom-ever that decides they want to climb it and slips and falls then decides to sue because I erected an “attractive temptation without safeguards” for my grandchildren to play on. Not fair, just reality on how some are going to view your responsibility to keep a fool from hurting themselves doing something stupid.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- toto
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:18am
  Too bad there is not a disabling malady that only affects lawyers. Think how much better life would be for us all if we had 1/100th of the lawyers now practicing, and that number may be too many.
  
  Report this comment
- apbt55
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 1:15pm
  yepp lets just cave because it will be tough to keep freedom. in PA if you have your property posted the extension of castle law protects you from lawsuits by tresspassers.
  
  Report this comment
- txannie
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 2:15pm
  @apbt55…Instead of “caving” we did something else. When it became evident that the hoa’s and code enforcement could have an impact on what we did on our property, we sold and bought 150 acres so far out your gps has a hard time finding us. We put our place where anyone will have to walk a half mile to reach our house, through the bull pens and then get by the dogs and driveway alarms and hotwire. We painted all our fence posts purple because that signifies NO TRESSPASSING in Texas and we got our concealed carry permits. If you make it to the house undetected the roosters let me know a stranger is near. We didn’t “cave”, we changed our location to fit our way of life. By the way, it was very expensive. We emptied our retirement accounts so now this farm/ranch has to be our retirement. We paid dearly for the right to do what we want on our property without having to check with anyone about code, and it was our choice to do so, so you won’t hear us whining about how much it cost us, but we will fight for that right. You can bet your bippy on that.
  
  Report this comment
ares338
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:34am
You should always check your local zoning rules. I have no sympathy in this case. If you can one a variance you have to give one to everyone!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- theaton
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 11:41am
  You’re right, we should have to check with the government everytime we want to do something on our private property! I’m guessing you’re a product of the public education system.
  
  Report this comment
- Johnny Cocheroo
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 12:20pm
  @Theaton
  
  So you won’t mind when I purchase the house next to you and start up my all night rock bar?
  
  Doesn’t have to be all or none, some laws are needed for schmucks out there who are immoral or stupid.
  
  Report this comment
- apbt55
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 1:22pm
  Well I agree with theaton, and yes if you own the land you can do that. and I can set up my shooting range and manure storage right next to you. There is a difference between force of government and voluntary interactions. A difference between talking to your neighbors and being respectful with each other and force of theft at the end of a gun. Zoning ordinances are force of theft at the end of a gun. If you wanted protections from devaluation due to blight, move into a community with contractual home owners association. as the landowners sign no contract with the local government the government has not authority under the constitution to strip them of their property rights.
  
  Report this comment
elkonian
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:31am
Its a shed on stilts. Very ugly in my opinion, and look how close it is to the neighbors. Should not have been placed where it was.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Michael
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:25am
it is in an older part of town, and there are other front yard structures in the area a lot uglier.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RightThinking1
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:24am
That is over the top.
Moreover, I wonder about parents that put up these high-zoot tree houses. When I was a kid (you, know, the bad old days), the kids built their own tree houses, generally from scrounged scrap lumber. It may have been no more than a platform, or it may have been a tiny shed-like thing. At any rate, the building of the thing was as much fun as having it, and there was the reward of “We built that!” There is a sense of ownership associated with production, as opposed to simply taking possession of something.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
twyatt8387
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:20am
On my property, I should be able to put anything I want. They should be able to put up a tree house. To much local government control. It is for the kids. If neighbors don’t like it, move.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Landon410
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:19am
they put a shed on stiltz….. smh….. back yard please, and there are lots of neighborhoods and zoning requirments for “outbuildings” its not an uncommon thing

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NILAP
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:18am
Treehouses are as American as apple pie.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Slowman101
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:17am
It should be in tha back yard. Looks somewhat unsightly in the front.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Jetlander
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:17am
Although the tree house is very out of place in the front yard and looks kind like an eye sore, I do not support the ridiculously permit process found in most locations. Permits should be required for small uninhabitable structures such as a treehouse.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mom4times
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:15am
Love the tree house…..but it belongs in the back yard

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- txannie
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:24am
  Yep. And not only because of the code, but just think what this family will lose if some yahoo gets drunk and tries to climb it, falls and sues them for putting something like that where he/she could reach it. You couldn’t blame the drunk for doing something stupid, ya know….Hey, it could happen….
  
  Report this comment
Common Sense 24
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:12am
Why the front yard? That thing is god awful ugly. They should have put it in the back. I’d even have helped them build it back there.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Leslie Anne
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:01am
That thing belongs in the backyard. If there isn’t an appropriate tree in the backyard, then sink some support posts 4 feet deep in concrete out back and prop the thing up top.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- QuincySmith
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:19am
  Leslie;
  
  Are you familiar with Agenda 21? If not, I suggest you invest some time because it is already here.
  
  Report this comment
ChiefGeorge
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:00am
Feeling like a police state yet?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
demsrtraitors
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 9:56am
so a tree house is somehow bad for this town? but I bet they do and say NOTHING to the ILLEGAL ALIENS in that very same town.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
IndyGuy
Posted on November 26, 2012 at 9:55am
The Feminazi’s are just mad ’cause there’s no girls allowed…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- oldguy49
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:02am
  sorry but being a homeowner i understand rules………….no veg gardens or tree houses in the front yard…….
  
  Report this comment
- Leslie Anne
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:07am
  I agree. That sort of stuff (play structures, gardens, etc.) belongs in the backyard, not out front.
  
  Report this comment
- IndyGuy
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:22am
  Uh…That was just a joke folks…I agree it doesn’t belong in the front yard…Now if they lived in the country on acreage away from neighbors,have at it…
  
  Report this comment
- apbt55
  Posted on November 26, 2012 at 1:10pm
  Careful you brought out the commie in these so called constitutional conservatives. Zoning ordinances are unconstitutional regardless of the case precedent from the era of the communist infiltration of american government. If it doesn’t harm your property then tough. You hypocrites are the reason agenda 21 is being so easily implemented.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.