I watched the news footage and cannot see why the courts are involved. Nature or Nuisance: Neighbors Fight Over Tree-Filled Yard http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1272348/
I woder how long they have lived there? It sounds like it could be a situation where they have lived there a long time and neighborhoods with "landscaping" popped up around them.
Did not vote due to insufficient options and lack of information. Did it go against a covenant for their property and or community laws? If there isn't a covenant or law that preceded their ownership I say they can do what they want.
Not enough information from which to draw a conclusion. The overgrowth of brush, which is a public health issue, the potential impact on the property of others when the overgrowth of trees is naturally limited, and the possible covenants/regulations are all factors to be considered.
Just wondering if you looked at the picture and video provided in the link. It's not exactly what I consider overgrown. It's wooded. It sounded like the issue is that it is a "city" neighborhood and at least one of the neighbors stated if the owners want trees they should move out of the city.
Yes, watched the video as well. It is a secondary growth, which naturally starts out very dense and as the trees grow the weaker die out. In several of the clips you could see several smaller pines in a small area, which is an overgrowth when planning a mature plot. This is based on a planned growth for harvest, not long term growth and this dimension is much greater than it appeared was the case in that yard. http://www.dof.virginia.gov/mgt/resources/ft-low-density-plant-loblolly.pdf Planting 14 feet between rows and 9 feet between trees I do not doubt that is part of the issue with at lease some of the people, but the video indicated a bit of underbrush in a couple of the clips, as well as a much higher density than the healthy growth would dictate.
Well, I'm voting yes, but only because that property looks very out of place compared to the surrounding properties. Not to mention, the front yard is tiny and close to the road which makes it look even stranger. I'll bet if we saw the property in person we would see why the neighbors are complaining. If nothing else, the signs need to go! Like the woman said, if they want to live in a rural area, they should buy in a rural area. JMO.
The question isn't really if we as neighbors would want them down, if that was the case the poll would probably be going the other way. I think most of us are voting based on the laws/contracts and property owners rights.
Here is another story on this issue http://rdu.news14.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=103166 Take a look at the pictures at this link. The house next to them also has many pines http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=258936 There is no mention of specific neighborhood covinents they are violating. It sounds like a few neighbors just don't like they way it looks and have been annoying enough for the city to get involved. IF she had a bunch of trash, junk cars, etc... I can see how that would be considered an "eyesore" ... but trees? Maybe we can get one of those inspectors to move to Johnston County and make the homeowner in my neighborhood who painted their house an unsightly teal to repaint it. It is an eyesore! Then there is the house with the purple shutters. After that he/she could stop by the house that has had a pack rat sitting in the middle of the front yard for almost a year and a half ... then .... Based on what I've read so far ... this is another case where government has overstepped!
In the second picture you can see a lot of underbrush (young trees) which cannot grow in a healthy manner due to the existing trees. They are too close together. The city attorney's office and inspections department declined to comment on camera because the issue is an ongoing court case. They said they're not asking Fawkes to cut down her trees. They just want her to clear the undergrowth because it could be a “breeding ground or harbor for rats, mosquitoes, harmful insects or other pests.”
Okay, the second picture does a much better job of showing how the property really looks. I need to change my vote to NO now.
Just a thought, but should the poll actually have been "should they have to remove the underbrush/young trees", since that is what is being proposed?
