City of University Park Took the Treehouses From Children, Now They Want Their Smashball Courts Too
University Park resident and super dad Kyle Green has been hearing his son, Colby, talk about a game called Smashball since playing it at Camp Ozark last summer. A couple of weeks ago on March 26, Green decided to get the neighborhood kids off the couch and away from the Xbox by building the structure necessary for some Smashball smack downs on the vacant lot next door.
A few days later the game was in full swing but so was Mike Brackin from code enforcement with the City of University Park. Brackin showed up on the scene, knocked on some doors and ultimately told Green that “it must be removed in the next couple of days.” According to Green, Brackin claims the Smashball structure violates section 21 of the zoning code.
(c) Location of Dwellings and Buildings Only one (1) main building use with permitted accessory buildings may be located upon a lot or approved building site unless such structures are located on an officially approved site plan. Each dwelling shall face or front upon a public street or approved place, but shall not face an alley.Accessory Building or Use, Residential means a subordinate, detached building or structure in a residential district, used for a purpose customarily incidental to the main structure, such as a private garage for automobile storage, tool house, lath or greenhouse as a hobby (no business), home workshop, servants quarters, children’s playhouse, storage house, garden shelter or swimming pool, but not involving the conduct of a business, nor used as a dwelling area or place of abode except as noted under “Servants Quarters” as defined in this Section.Accessory Use means a use subordinate to and incidental to the primary use of the main building or to the primary use of the premises.
The vacant lot on the 4300 block of Purdue is owned by local real estate agent, Anne Oliver. Oliver would not comment on whether or not she approves but did say, “It’s against the law to build a structure on someone else’s property without permission.” Oliver said the lot has been vacant for a few months and that she is unsure of her plans for the property.
Brackin is out of the office until April 12 but his colleague, Russell Craig, said that it does need to come down though he’s unaware of the exact deadline. When asked why it must be removed he said, “Number 1, it’s a vacant lot. Number 2, he doesn’t own the lot. And number 3, it’s a structure without a main building.” When asked if any complaints had been received, Craid said, “I think so but I’m not sure.”
Green says the structure isn’t permanent but that it would need to be disassembled in order to relocate it.
That would be a shame according to neighbor Cynthia Smoot who agrees that the game has offered children a way to get outside and play safely without being in the street.
Seriously, go get the drug dealers and leave the Smashball arena alone. Unless the lot owner wants the thing off her property, but remember, no comment on that.
18 comments to "City of University Park Took the Treehouses From Children, Now They Want Their Smashball Courts Too "
It still makes no sense whatsoever that big, multi-colored trampolines, lax goals, etc. are allowed, but small, well-built treehouses and structures like this one are not. The City (and the City Council) just blindly point to the statute on the books, but I think the point is that a pretty good chunk of people in the neighoborhodd want the statute changed – or at least want to open a discussion about it.
He built this thing (whatever it is) on someone else’s property. Game over.
And Merritt, Anne Oliver probably doesn’t want to comment further because she doesn’t want to make a huge stink in her neighborhood. She probably called the city, asked them to deal with it, they did, and then somehow (probably through Kyle Green) this nothingburger found its way to you. This “super dad” sounds a bit childish. The city tells him he has to stop trespassing on someone else’s property so he runs crying to a certain contributor to a local pageview-hungry blog who he knows will take up his cause.
“Unless the lot owner wants the thing off her property, but remember, no comment on that.”
Oh snap.
But seriously, that is such BS. She doesn’t owe you an explanation, although she did say “It’s against the law to build a structure on someone else’s property without permission.” Read between the lines. There’s your explanation.
Too bad, though. Sounds like a great thing and fun for the kids.
>>”It still makes no sense whatsoever that big, multi-colored trampolines, lax goals, etc. are allowed, but small, well-built treehouses and structures like this one are not.”
It makes perfect sense. Trampolines and goals can be taken down, structures cannot. How does one not see the difference? Maybe your next-door neighbor genuinely loves your treehouse, but what about the folks they sell their home to next year?
I don’t recall the city council blindly pointing to the statute. If memory serves, some selfish individuals actually brought it to a hearing, and it was discussed before being ruled upon. I can’t imagine a “pretty good chunk” of people think this issue needs to be revisited. It makes very, very little sense. Surely most people in UP do not want eyesore recreational structures built in front yards.
And quit whining about trampolines. Trampolines and such are ugly enough, but they can be removed, and “two wrongs make a right” is not a good argument.
Of course the property owner doesn’t want to go on record saying “no way.” She would immediately be labeled “anti family” by the same sorts of people whose heartstrings are tugged by the photo accompanying this post–tugged so far that they ignore what a silly, irresponsible thing this so-called “super dad” did. “No one’s using it, so we can just take, it, right?”
As for kids playing outdoors, amen. Our community has the finest and most abundant park grounds per capita in Texas I’m sure. Not to mention our outstanding school facilities and sports programs, which are the envy of the southwest. And not to mention BACK YARDS. Whatever happened to back yards? Let me take a wild guess–”super dad” paved over his.
Ms. Oliver stated on Friday (after this post published) that she had no issue with the structure and whatever happened was between the Greens and the city. The lot has been vacant for almost a year and until Ms. Oliver decides to build on it, the neighborhood children have turned it into “Purdue Park”.
The whole point of this post wasn’t to turn this into an issue with Mr. Green and Ms. Oliver. There is NO issue there. The point was – and is – that the city should be more concerned with crime and other important issues than this one. This a small structure on the back of a vacant lot that is barely visible from the street and is bringing a great deal of fun and joy to a lot of kids in the surrounding streets. Let’s stay focused…
Leave a Reply