Treehouse Mired in Town Wetlands Law

Treehouse Mired in Town Wetlands Law

The Lewisboro Ledger (representing a number of communities North of New York city, NY) reports on a court case that started over the citation of a treehouse built too close to a protected wetlands area.

The suit was brought by a group of 10 residents who had been brought before the Planning Board by Mr. Fain for violating the wetlands law, which regulates what residents may do within 150 feet of a town-defined wetland.

The residents claim that the inspector was acting in an overzealous manner and was too intrusive into their private lives when he used the letter of the wetlands law, rather than the intent, to challenge a number of structures on their properties including a treehouse.

Mr. DeLucia criticized the acts of the town employees that led to the case.

"It's all a matter of perspective," he said. "Remember, this whole lawsuit started with a violation issued against a tree house. In my 16 years of code enforcement, I've often heard it said that you never write up an igloo or a child's tree house."

Peter Manbeck, Ms. Manbeck's husband, had originally been charged with a violation for building a tree house within a regulated wetlands buffer, although that charge was eventually dropped before the lawsuit was brought against the town.

How reasonable is it to ban the building of a treehouse near wetlands? This is a unique case because unlike traditional structures a treehouse doesn't usually touch the ground, or the wetland habitat, that the law is designed to protect. In fact the charge was for building a structure near the wetland not in it.

Furthermore, many wetland reserves and protected parks build viewing platforms -- structures similar in design to that of a treehouse -- because they mitigate harm to the wetland environment and allow the public to visit and experience the unique natural beauty of the place. This better describes the intent of the law to promote protection and enjoyment.

The charge against the treehouse was dropped; however, the case demonstrates how even environmental protection laws can be misapplied and overgeneralized to the detriment of common citizen's enjoyment of their private lives and experience of nature -- particularily when an unusual structure such as a tree house in involved.

---