Why isn’t there a CODES section on this Forum?
Anyway – If your city code allows treehouses “Tree-supported Play Structure” as being EXEMPT from permit (Less than 200 Sq Feet) do you think the building official should still be able to “nit-pik” it? I wouldn’t be able to pay for a permit so how can he say the IBC/IRC still applies to it? Officials on ICC forum simply stated: IBC covers ANY structure. So I guess I would need him to isnpect my swingset & zip line also since they are on the same tree and part of the entire “Play structure” . What a load of crap!
If they want to push the issue – AND THEY DO! I could be forced to pay for Arborist, Engineer, $100 tree area permit. $50 grading permit. Surveyor to determine Hieght (Only thing they have me on) Treehouse expert ETC ETC ETC. BTW “crack houses & pitbulls & car thefts” Nope not much we can do there. ICC is probably writing a $75 per copy “International Treehouse Code” book right now.
Replies
Not a treehouse
The structure you have shown in the picture is not a tree house.
It is an elevated structure supported primarily by a truss.
As such, it exceeds the exemption in the code for storage sheds, etc. that are under a threshold size, and do not have specialized systems, such as plumbing or electrical.
Exactly.
I could build a house on stilts, with a sapling planted in the center of the lot, tied in with one screw/nail, and call it a treehouse.
A better case could be made for removing that upper structure and placing it on the lower level.
Not - What specific reff. supports your arguement? Truss?
Not - Not saying I disagree but what specifically would you cite? The tree most certainly holds up whatever vertical loads are on it and it also keeps it from being able to move laterally except in tiny amounts to accomidate wind loads. It is in fact under 90 Sq Ft for the "Hut" and less than 200 Sq Ft overall. Back against tree is small end of triangle shape.
The tree part of it is outside the realm of the IBC (my opinion only). An engineer could overide the BO on all of it. But only a Treehouse Expert SHOULD be able to. The BO is neither of those and isn't an Arborist either. (all just my opinions of coarse).
Sappling Arguement doesn't work unless you think it wouldn't fall over if the tree disapeared (Tree may disapear since I can't do anything else).
A guy locally got in a fight with Building department so he went out and took pictures of the roadside brick mailboxes of every councilman, citty official, mayor. He said he was going to file a citizens complaint because they are all permanent structures built on city right of way. The building department backed off.
here's the solution!!!!!!!!
Cable hang it from higher in tree and then seperate from swing set posts (giant truss). BO said then he would let it alone as a "exempt from permit" Treehouse.
Won't change a thing for complainer's view except maybe I paint "his wall" bright PINK!
too bad...
...as I'm a guy who usually holds the building officials to task when they overstep their bounds, or when they abrogate responsibility that is theirs. I just want them to do their job. Nothing more, nothing less.
I was all excited to offer you support, until I saw the photo and came to the same comclusion of others. That isn't a tree house. It might be leaning against a tree for support. But it's not a true treehouse. And I'd clasify is as more of a dervative of a "normal" structure than a dervative of a treehouse.
It doesn't look lke the tree has enough crown to support the house if cable-hung.
Perhaps a combination of cables and then underneath, angling the legs of the truss back to the tree trunk with the bottoms of the truss legs bearing on or against the trunk instead of on earth. Sort of like this, is this link works:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/mK/tree-house-2-470-1108.jpg
Still, that's a lot of compression loading on the tree trunk, which it could take if properly allocated. But it's the tension load on the upper part of the tree from the cables that concerns me. You have a somewhat substantial structure. And the loading moment is far removed from the centerline of the tree.
Were it me, I'd take it down and rebuild it around the trunk(s) of the tree. But that fence just behind the tree...if that's the property line, I see the issue with that. A portion of the tree house would then be overhanging your neighbors properly, knocking that idea down.
There are likely ways to get the treehouse built. But probably not using the structure that you have up there now. It's likely require a redesign to reallocate the weight loads.
The conundrum continues...
Agreed -- It wouldn't be a far step from what's in that picture for someone to simply build a tree into the corner of their house and call it a "tree house" to avoid code/inspection.
The structure is pushing the envelope and getting b!tchy with the inspectors only makes things worse. A better strategy would be to throw yourself on the mercy of the court and ask for a variance, perhaps after agreeing to a few modifications.
Mongo / Dan I get what your sayin but.............
I only had 1 place to put this.(we have no other lg. trees) I specifically did NOT build it in the center of tree in order to impact neighbor the least. Thats why it extends way into my own back yard instead of towards the nieghbors.
I built it tall so it would be a true treehouse UP IN the tree branches. My son didn't come ask me "Daddy - can you build me a code compliant less than 200 Sq Ft , 14' 11" high stilt supported utility shed 1 " from the 5' setbacks?". Do you honestly think there would be rash of tree pole home additions if they don't crack down on me? The "building" area is less than 90 Sq Ft. Hardley the size of a bedroom addition.
Anyway - I didn't do it to stick my thumb in anyones nose. It is bigger looking than I thought it would be once the tree drops its leaves but so what. The house next to my back yard is a flat roof, 1960's Modern Architecture, ALL white Stucco Monstrosity that is so far out of character for the neighborhood you wouldn't beleive it. Everyone talks about it all the time and Hates it. SO WHAT - no HOA's in this neighborhood.
Question is then - When & Why was "tree supported play structure" added to list of exempt from permit items. Wouldn't the most important part of that include a height limitation? Why mention a 200 Sq Ft limit ? They could have left the 200 Sq Ft limit buried 2,000 pages later in the zoning code just like the hieght limit.
IF you really beleive people will drag trees into their lot and build tree house additions then I would think THEY would also have been so smart and made it very clear NO TreeHouses Over 15' High. And - FULLY Tree- Supported. No posts allowed. Swing set posts must be less than 15' high etc etc etc.
I doubt that whomever wrote the line "Accessory structure / building must be less than 15' high" in the 1950's had the "Purpose and Intent" of applying it to Treehouses.
The only reason they are wasting 3-4 weeks public employee time is because of 1 childless single guy wanting to use his newly elected position to squash something that doesn't affect him at all. Just doesn't like it - no explanation required. NO one else complained. Especially the closest ones who could argue they have a ligitimate reason to object.
To me, "tree supported
To me, "tree supported structure" means a structure supported by trees. Yours is only partially supported by trees. Granted, it's a fuzzy gray line, but I suspect your attitude with the officials (and your neighbors) pushes them to the far side of it.
Yup.
Dan & Paul - Why do you assume neighbors hate it?
Only 1 person has an unknown problem. This isn't a view of lakes or mts. issue. This guy can barely see this from the far corner of his backyard. We have people admiring it as they walk by and even bring other folks to see it from the street 130' or so away.
I am working with city on a solution. I didn't ADD or WRITE "Tree-supported Play Structure" to the city code. THEY DID (Why) and why add that with a 200 Sq Ft limitation but NOTHING about height limitation.
Are you telling me that you know every minute detail of your own city code and update your knowledge every 3 years as it changes?