ANN ARBOR, MI - Ann Arbor residents Tamar Boyadjian and Greg Douglas say they built a treehouse in their backyard last year so their children would have a cool place to play and hang out.

"We're all artists in different ways, so it was kind of like an arts space for them as well," said Boyadjian, who has two boys, 7 and 13, while her fiance has two younger children from a previous marriage.

"I think every kid growing up would love a treehouse and every adult that didn't have one would love one for their kids."

Several months after raising the backyard hideaway, the couple is in court fighting with the city over the large wooden structure built among the trees behind their Shadford Road home near Burns Park.

The city, which is pressing the family to finish making required changes to the treehouse, maintains it's only following up on neighbor complaints and trying to enforce the city's building and zoning codes, while Boyadjian claims she's being unfairly prosecuted.

Douglas is not named as a defendant in the case because Boyadjian owns the home.

"So far, we've paid $1,200 in fines, and then there are additional fines that they're trying to get us to pay, and then all of the payments for revisions, plans, permits, etc." Boyadjian said. "We've paid the fines, but we're contesting this last fine for $5,000. The city prosecutor was also suggesting jail time at one point for the treehouse."

Douglas and friend Adam Goeman built the treehouse last year, initially without a permit. They've since been working to bring it into compliance with city code, per the city's demands, including increasing the distance the structure is set back from the rear and side property lines, and redoing an underground electrical conduit.

They've also had to remove wooden siding, and must install fire-resistant material.

There's also work left to do related to the footings and other parts of the treehouse.

At a hearing in Ann Arbor's 15th District Court last Friday, Aug. 24, Judge Karen Valvo declined to grant an extension of time in the case of the non-conforming treehouse.

Boyadjian has until Aug. 31, the end of this week, to either have it taken down or brought up to code.

If not, she could face more penalties.

The matter is due back in court at 10 a.m. Sept. 7 for a review of where things stand.

Goeman said he and Douglas make a living renovating houses, so they know what they're doing. He, too, is annoyed by the ongoing ordeal.

"First it started out as a problem with it being too close to the property line, so then we complied, and it was really just a snowball effect -- they kept coming with different things and taking a very long time to approve permits and plans," he said. "We were just jumping through every single hoop and they kept coming. We're near the end, but there are some more hangups right now."

As of last Friday, Goeman wasn't confident they could get the rest of the work done by the court-ordered deadline.

As he did some work around the yard, 7-year-old Daniel and 13-year-old Raffi tossed a football in the driveway. They said they can't wait for their treehouse to be done.

Goeman said the original vision for the treehouse has been scaled back somewhat due to the changes required by the city, but the plan is to still make it a nice place for the children, complete with a carpeted room with a couch, TV and refrigerator. There's also a drum kit up on the treehouse deck that the boys can use.

"It's going to be a living space," Goeman said. "There's electrical up there and everything. It'll be a furnished, finished, livable area."

Frustrated by the ongoing legal battle, Boyadjian and her fiance are speaking out.



"We are being maliciously prosecuted by the city," said Douglas.

Boyadjian, an assistant professor of medieval literature at Michigan State University, said her neighbors have a history of making complaints about her family, calling police to report everything from loud music to the height of their grass or their trash bin being left at the curb too long.

Some of those past complaints have resulted in tickets, landing Boyadjian in court multiple times.

Neighbor complaints about the treehouse resulted in more tickets last year, landing Boyadjian in court once again.

"One neighbor told me they didn't think my family was a good cultural fit for the neighborhood," Boyadjian said. "They pointed out the treehouse and that we like to play music once in a while, things that I think are very human."

The city says the case simply involves routine code enforcement, but Douglas believes the family is being unfairly targeted.

"We went to court for eight months, paid full price on some of the fines, half on others, others were dismissed, so the tickets were completely resolved, and we're right back in court over and over and over," Douglas said.

"The last time we got a 90-day extension, the city took 10 of the 12 weeks to approve the permit and the judge to date is not giving us another extension. We are getting completely railroaded."

Senior Assistant City Attorney Kristen Larcom, the city's prosecutor on the case, asked the judge in May to impose imprisonment for an indefinite term and a fine of up to $7,500, as well as costs for the legal proceedings, after Boyadjian was found in contempt of court for failure to bring the treehouse into compliance in April.

"They have to comply with the building code. It's that simple," Larcom said. "It's just a routine enforcement action and the judge has found them responsible and ordered them to have it in compliance by Aug. 31."

Larcom said the city hasn't done anything to prevent the couple from bringing the project into compliance.

Boyadjian and Douglas complain the timelines set by the city and the court are unreasonable, because the city didn't approve their new plans to bring the treehouse into compliance until this month.

After months of denials, they got the city to sign off on revised plans on Aug. 1, city records show.

The city denied previous submissions from April through July, saying they didn't satisfy the requirements.

The city believes the couple should have been able to bring the treehouse up to code in April, based on previous plans approved in March, but the couple wanted to change those plans.

Boyadjian said their previous architect quit on them earlier this year because it became too difficult dealing with the city. Their new architect, starting in April, tried to get revised plans approved, correcting a mistake in the stairway placement.

Boyadjian said she still expects to have the treehouse done and in compliance with city code soon.

"We're actively working toward it now that the plans got approved, so depending on the city and whether they comply and say it's OK, hopefully we should be able to finish it," she said.

"We don't really feel like it impedes in any way on anyone's safety or quality of life," she added, taking issue with her neighbors for complaining to the city about the treehouse.

Boyadjian acknowledges they started the treehouse project about a year ago without a permit initially.

"We called the city and asked them what was required and they said that no permit was required, so we started building based on the information that they gave us," she said.

"I think it was a couple weeks after we started building that an inspector came and said that a permit was required, and we said that we would be happy to file for one."

City records show Boyadjian applied for a zoning compliance permit last September, and it was approved two days later, with stipulations that the treehouse must be at least three feet from the side and rear property lines and could not exceed 21 feet in height.

Paperwork submitted to the city indicated the treehouse would be 80 square feet with a 101-square-foot attached porch, standing 19 feet tall, with the floor nine feet above ground and the ceiling sloping from eight to 10 feet in height.

City records also show Boyadjian applied for a building permit last fall, but it took a series of exchanges over the course of several months before plans that satisfied the city were approved in March.

Then it took a few more months to get revised plans approved, working with the new architect.

Boyadjian said there's been an ongoing back-and-forth exchange with the building department since last year.

"We have been working to comply at every step with their demands," she said. "We've worked with professionals, architects, structural engineers, and we've had a lot of pushback from the city."

Glen Dempsey, the city's building official, couldn't be reached for comment for this story.

Brett Lenart, the city's planning department manager, said when the city inspected the treehouse last year, it was found to be in violation of both the city's zoning and building codes.

He said the city tried working with the property owner to seek compliance, but despite repeated attempts, that proved difficult.

"It's been sort of a long case," he said.

The city took the matter to court late last year for a Nov. 21 zoning violation and a Dec. 1 building code violation. Boyadjian was found responsible for the violations at a hearing on April 6.

Boyadjian is being represented by attorney Julia Gilbert, a senior associate at Cannabis Counsel in Detroit. According to the family, they already had the attorney retained for a cannabis business matter, and the case of the treehouse is not marijuana-related.

Douglas said he's doing his best to keep the treehouse project moving forward, and that he has done as much work as possible since the revised plans were approved earlier this month.

"There's no humanly way possible that I could have gotten any farther than I got in those two weeks," he said, arguing he believes the Aug. 31 deadline to finish the project is illegal. "No other person has a timeline on construction. They made that up."

Douglas added, "We didn't do anything wrong. We started this entire process with a phone call to the city. We attempted to stay in compliance the entire time."