I live on 20 mostly wooded acres. The property next to me (26 acres) was
sold
last year to a man that owns an excavating company. The 26 acres that sold
has
a small river that winds through most of the property with many areas of
wetlands. There is not much clear, dry land in the entire property that is
suitable for building.

SNIP

He has destroyed what was once a beautiful piece of property.

What I wouldn't give for a 20 acre plot. Sigh In our case, it's an urban
lot that is 50' x 200' in size. The neighbor's property is right about the
same (I think his is a tad wider and a tad shorter). All of the homes here
are basically cut back into hills and the hills continue behind our
properties. To say the least, drainage is a MAJOR problem -- I'll wager our
houses sit several hundred feet lower than the topmost point of the hill
behind and it stretches back around a mile or two with houses built all over
on it. Being at the bottom of the hill means lots and lots of run off.
Thankfully, much of the hill is wooded so there's SOME relief -- if they did
any more building back there we'd be in serious trouble! The street we live
on has started flooding as a result of the changes to the lay of the land in
recent years -- I've lived here for nearly 30 years and never seen such a
thing until this spring and it's happened several times.

Our neighbor has a stated goal of clearing out a couple dozen trees in favor
of usable lawn space. While it's a shame to see the trees go, that also
means that the area will be opened up so it might not be quite a swamp (a
bone of contention we've had with him for several years now due to
mosquitoes -- the house has been largely abandoned for years). I think he's
in for a rude awakening though when he gets that all cleared out -- he's
going to create a whole new flood zone. We'll be adding a dry creek along
that side of the property to hopefully catch any extra run off but with all
the current drainage issues and increased rainfall...well, let's just say
I'll keep a boat handy in the living room.

James

Xref: kermit rec.gardens:256173


Another Nazi state supporter heard from. What I do with my property as
long as I own it or am making the paymewnts on it should concern no
one but me and my financer...........Its easy in ALabama to reroute
streams if you show the agency you intend to do it correctly. Its a
mere formality, but even then if you don't your not likely to wind up
in jail unless that stream is actually navigable. Nothing like living
necxt to sneaky unfriendly neighbors spying on them, just waiting to
report someone for an infringement. Too much time yon your hands and a
prepensity to mind others business. Sure not someone I would like to
live around.

On 12 Nov 2003 18:07:39 GMT, (SAS567) wrote:

===
===Hey gang -- a question. I have a neighbor who is clearing out a bunch of
===trees. Depending on which trees he decides to pull out, this could have a
===substantial affect on my property both in terms of drainage/erosion as well
===as wind breaks.
===I live on 20 mostly wooded acres. The property next to me (26 acres) was sold
===last year to a man that owns an excavating company. The 26 acres that sold has
===a small river that winds through most of the property with many areas of
===wetlands. There is not much clear, dry land in the entire property that is
===suitable for building. The man proceeded to put a driveway (road) in from the
===main road to the very back of the property which totals a little more than a
===quarter mile. We have an open field to the west of our property which enabled
===us to watch his progress. He had to remove many trees and used a huge machine
===to tear them out of the ground and a dozer to haul them to the giant burning
===pile which was burning all day & night for days. He hauled in large piles of
===stone and broken concrete for fill.
=== We figured he knew what he was doing because this was the business he was in
===and that he had contacted the right agency and obtained the proper permits.
===When he progressed farther towards the back of his property we noticed that he
===was driving on our property to get to the rear of his. We spoke with him at
===this time, showed him where the property line was and asked if he'd had his
===property surveyed. He had not. In order for him to get to the back of his
===property without driving on ours, he had to fill in a large area of wetlands.
===He decided to have his property serveyed. We called the agency (DEQ) in our
===area to see if he had obtained the permission to re-route some smaller creeks
===and fill in wetlands and he had not. They came out and saw all the damage he
===had done and posted a "Stop Work" order on his property. He has not done any
===further work on his driveway for almost a year now. He made the comment to us
===that he was barely keeping his hind end out of jail.
=== He has destroyed what was once a beautiful piece of property.
=== Sue in Mi. (zone 5)

Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wifes,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

From: (Roy)
Date: 11/13/03 5:37 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Another Nazi state supporter heard from.

First let me clarify that I am not a Nazi.

What I do with my property as
long as I own it or am making the paymewnts on it should concern no
one but me and my financer........

I agree, as long as everything is done legally and for the environment. (I have
grand kids that I want to protect.)

...Its easy in ALabama to reroute
streams if you show the agency you intend to do it correctly.

Keywords being "show the agency" & "correctly." He didn't even contact or
inform anyone of his plans.

Its a mere formality, but even then if you don't your not likely to wind up
in jail unless that stream is actually navigable.

Obviously we have different laws as to the preservation of wetlands here in Mi.
He will either have to pay a hefty fine to the state, be made to restore the
property to its original state or serve time in jail if he refuses the first
two solutions.

Nothing like living
necxt to sneaky unfriendly neighbors spying on them, just waiting to
report someone for an infringement. Too much time yon your hands and a
prepensity to mind others business. Sure not someone I would like to
live around.

I am not an unfriendly, sneaky neighbor. After speaking with the property
owner, we discovered that we knew him and his fiance.
I am not spying. My view from this computer in my office looks directly
towards his property. In Mi. it gets cold and dark here quite early in the fall
and I can't do any gardening outside. (Which is the basis of this message
board.)
I don't have too much time on my hands and I am a private person who doesn't
care what others do as long as it's legal. If he only would have pulled the
right permits he would have been OK.
Also let me add that I'm not the only one or the first one in the area that
questioned his actions. Three other property owners called to report him before
I called, which was to a different agency and only to ask if he pulled the
right permits.
Sue in Mi. (zone 5)

In article ,
wrote:

Another Nazi state supporter heard from.

Godwin invoked. You lose.

What I do with my property as
long as I own it or am making the paymewnts on it should concern no
one but me and my financer..........

Wrong. See how you like it when YOUR neighbor decides to put a
smoke-belching stink-factory for burning up corpses on the property to
your left, while on the property to your right they make charcoal so that
you become asthmatic & die.

YOU might not care if a rare species of toad will become extinct just so
you can put in a private airfield or dig a gravel pit on the back forty so
**** the wetlands protection act; YOU might think it's great & marvy to
grow some pot or cook up some meth inside your trailer as long as it's on
your own damned property; YOU might think it's your business if you
reroute a salmon stream or flush your toilet straight into the community
watershed; YOU might think it's your own choice to turn your property into
an automobile graveyard or toxic waste dump. YOU might even think it was a
great idea to have an open sesspool or a hooverville complete with
tent-bordello, or turn your acreage into an unfenced racoon sanctuary with
ten thousand scrawny racoons almost as badly inbred & disease-festered as
your children. But by & large, not even Alabamans are as ignorant as
that.Your property rights do not trump the property rights of others or
the common good of the community & environment.

Now if you were griping only that everything's over-regulated I'd be with
you. I know a guy who lives way the hell in the middle of nowhere but even
there couldn't escape building coades, & literally had to take down a
well-made addition to his house & rebuild it from scratch because he
mismeasured the beam width by half an inch & the inspector wouldn't budge
& had the dumbass law on his side. I know of families that cannot live on
the same twenty acres together they're not permitted to build a second
house at all, thus end up scattered to the wind esclusively because of
zoning codes. Yet when some big developer wants to build a butt-ugly
high-density apartment across the street, they've got all the exceptions
they can pay for\ by greasing the palms of a few shithead politicians.

I'd go farther than most people in rolling back the excess of laws. I
don't believe the sound of a rooster in the morning is something evil &
horrifying, & city folks should have roosters; if someone doesn't like
getting up at dawn because he's an unemployed wife-beater who has gotten
used to sleeping past noon, he shouldn't have the law on his side telling
some little kid next door she can't keep her chickens because they crow,
while at the same time noisy ****ing lawnmowers spewing toxic fumes make a
legal smelly racket, but at least there's no gawdamn cockadoodling
chicken. And if someone wanted one shetland pony instead of the maximum
legal limit of three great danes in their big back yard inside the city
limits, why the hell should the dogs be legal & one little horse is
against the law? Laws are often random & stupid.

There should be about one-tenth of the regulations that impose on every
aspect of peoples' private lives. But the day there are no regulations at
all, that's the day your neighbor starts stacking up hog-corpses along his
side of fence & covers them with carrion beetles until they're clean
enough to sell articulated pig skeletons on eBay. When the stench of
putrifying corpses exceeds even the smell of your open sesspool & your
three-thousand disease-ridden racoons, even you will be wishing there was
a law.

-paghat the ratgirl

.Its easy in ALabama to reroute
streams if you show the agency you intend to do it correctly. Its a
mere formality, but even then if you don't your not likely to wind up
in jail unless that stream is actually navigable. Nothing like living
necxt to sneaky unfriendly neighbors spying on them, just waiting to
report someone for an infringement. Too much time yon your hands and a
prepensity to mind others business. Sure not someone I would like to
live around.

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

(SAS567) wrote in
:

From: (Roy)
Date: 11/13/03 5:37 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Another Nazi state supporter heard from.

First let me clarify that I am not a Nazi.

What I do with my property as
long as I own it or am making the paymewnts on it should concern no
one but me and my financer........

I agree, as long as everything is done legally and for the
environment. (I have grand kids that I want to protect.)

...Its easy in ALabama to reroute
streams if you show the agency you intend to do it correctly.

Keywords being "show the agency" & "correctly." He didn't even
contact or inform anyone of his plans.

My husband spent the last two weeks clearing underbrush and trees that we
thought needed to be removed. We didn't go on anybodys property but ours.
We didn't ask anybody. We had two backhoes and really cleaned up. We
also dug out the creek bed. Just who are you suppost to ask if you want to
do something to property that you own? My Grandfather bought this property
in 1904. We have never ask anybody when we wanted to do something to this
property. I cannot believe we would need any kind of permit.



Its a mere formality, but even then if you don't your not likely to
wind up in jail unless that stream is actually navigable.

Obviously we have different laws as to the preservation of wetlands
here in Mi. He will either have to pay a hefty fine to the state, be
made to restore the property to its original state or serve time in
jail if he refuses the first two solutions.

Nothing like living
necxt to sneaky unfriendly neighbors spying on them, just waiting to
report someone for an infringement. Too much time yon your hands and a
prepensity to mind others business. Sure not someone I would like to
live around.

I am not an unfriendly, sneaky neighbor. After speaking with the
property owner, we discovered that we knew him and his fiance.
I am not spying. My view from this computer in my office looks
directly
towards his property. In Mi. it gets cold and dark here quite early in
the fall and I can't do any gardening outside. (Which is the basis of
this message board.)
I don't have too much time on my hands and I am a private person who
doesn't
care what others do as long as it's legal. If he only would have
pulled the right permits he would have been OK.
Also let me add that I'm not the only one or the first one in the
area that
questioned his actions. Three other property owners called to report
him before I called, which was to a different agency and only to ask
if he pulled the right permits.
Sue in Mi. (zone 5)

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:37:49 GMT, (Roy) wrote:


Another Nazi state supporter heard from. What I do with my property as
long as I own it or am making the paymewnts on it should concern no
one but me and my financer...........

well, i believe there are MANY MANY more regulations which encumber
the use of private property; there may be even neighborhood
associations which further limit what one may do, to which people
voluntarilly submit....they give up personal freedom in order to limit
the freedom of others.
HOWEVER there are zoning laws and if done rightfully, they would
protect the nature of your neighborhood, they would preserve standards
of population density and would protect your enjoyment of your
property. People chose to live in places which have the desired
quality of life, and something which screws it up, like a strip mall
in a fairly rural area, for example, or, some industrial thing which
belches crap into the air, this does not belong in a nice rural
residental neighborhood. So a person wanting to smelt iron or spray
pain cars would look for an area zoned for that sort of use, and not
wind up next to your nice house.

hermine

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:37:49 GMT, (Roy) wrote:

Another Nazi state supporter heard from.


Nazi proclamation kills thread!

In article ,
paghat wrote:
I'd go farther than most people in rolling back the excess of laws. I
don't believe the sound of a rooster in the morning is something evil &
horrifying, & city folks should have roosters; if someone doesn't like
getting up at dawn because he's an unemployed wife-beater who has gotten
used to sleeping past noon, he shouldn't have the law on his side telling
some little kid next door she can't keep her chickens because they crow,

Well - gotta tell you. Working the night shift, it really sucks to have
a rooster [or your neighbours leaf blower] going off beside you. City
folks don't tend to have the luxury of working sun-up to sun-down. When
you're packed in the way you are in the city, you've got to figure out
ways to live with your neighbours - and making sure they get some sleep
is definately one of them.

cheers!
--
================================================== ========================
"A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound
desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to
avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:30:50 -0500, "JNJ" wrote:

Hey gang -- a question. I have a neighbor who is clearing out a bunch of
trees. Depending on which trees he decides to pull out, this could have a
substantial affect on my property both in terms of drainage/erosion as well
as wind breaks.

I know there are typically laws/ordinances about doing these types of things
so I wanted to see if anyone had any tips on what to look and where to look.
Naturally, I'm going to talk to him about it before I go the legal route but
I need to have my p's and q's together with this guy -- he's a tough
neighbor to deal with on just about anything.

In many states there's no economical benefit (ie tax-deductible
reason) for keeping old-growth. After all, how many times have you
seen an exempt-status for someone with 5 acres of woods instead of 5
acres of farm? In NJ, 5 acres or more of farm land is given "farm
status" on property taxes (usually costing about a dollar an acre in
taxes each year), whereas normal property owners pay much more (about
$2500 per acre in some municipalities). There's no incentive to keep
woodlands around if you can wipe it out and make your land a
"tax-exempt farmland". In fact, these laws actually *favor* wiping
out woodlands in favor of tax-exempt status.

One more thing - you must make a minimum of $500 per year
in agricultural output from the "farmland" to keep the tax-exempt
status. Usually these people plant "Christmas trees", so they plant
most of the acreage with young pine seedlings, which is a good idea.
The only problem is these plants are usually cut down long before they
provide adequate food or shelter for wildlife. A good TAX shelter,
but not a good wildlife shelter heh.


Dan

Before talking to him, go to your city, county, or other local governing
body
and ask to see tree cutting & land clearing regulations/ordinances. You
need
ammunition in the gun before pulling the trigger, so to speak.
Your neighbor may have every right to do what he is doing, or may not. If
he
has already taken out trees that violates local regulations/ordinances, he
may
have to replace what was removed.

Thanks for the tip.

James

Fay wrote:

My husband spent the last two weeks clearing underbrush and trees that
we
thought needed to be removed. We didn't go on anybodys property but
ours.
We didn't ask anybody. We had two backhoes and really cleaned up. We
also dug out the creek bed. Just who are you suppost to ask if you
want to
do something to property that you own? My Grandfather bought this
property
in 1904. We have never ask anybody when we wanted to do something to
this
property. I cannot believe we would need any kind of permit.

You must not live in the United States, or you never pick-up a
newspaper, watch TV, or listen to news or talk radio. It's hard to
believe that someone in the US would not be aware that environmental
protection laws exist, and wetlands are protected. It comes up in nearly
every election of any consequence.

If you are in the US, I'd suggest you at least find out if you're
breaking any laws. Not knowing the law is no defense, and not knowing
the law makes it a lot easier to accidentally violate it.

Note that the intent of these laws isn't to restrict the use and
enjoyment of your property. They exist to govern situation where your
actions may adversely affect the property of others, and/or the
long-term viability of a sustainable environment.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Every Trading Spaces fan
needs an official Trading Spaces smock:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/tradingspacesgear.html

I think Tom offers good advice, as you should know specifically what your
"legal" rights might be in the matter. But by & large, there are not apt
to be ordinances that permit you to stop someone from taking trees off
their own property. The best thing would be if you could talk to the guy
in a totally friendly way & ask if he would permit you to have some input
into what is removed & what remains, for reasons of erosion, windbreak, &
beauty in the neighborhood. If he's a good egg he'll let you help in the
decision making. If he seems reluctant you could get SLIGHTLY tougher
about it, perhaps suggesting that it would awful if a year or two years
down the line predictable erosion damage forced a legal suit that could
end up driving a wedge between otherwise friendly neighbors. If he's dead
set against you sticking your nose into decisiosn about his property, then
write a polite letter (so that everything is in writing) noting what trees
you hope he decides to leave, because they are protecting your property
from erosion & to remove them would have a predictable adverse affect on
both properties. That way, if it does end up in court with you trying to
get damages after the erosion, or stop a clear-cut before it happens,
there'll be no way he can argue that it was unpredictable or that he
didn't know there could be an adverse effect. Obviously it's going to work
out much better for everyone if without threats or illwill you can agree
what is best for both properties before anything's taken down. Healthy
beautiful trees on a property with landscaping beauty increases property
value; he harms even himself if he takes away something that is impossible
or expensive to replace.

Yup. It's a delicate matter and I'll be talking to him first -- it's just a
matter of having everything ready for whatever direction he goes. It might
be a simple and quick conversation -- it could be a protracted battle with
ample property damage as a result of his actions. If we were in a rural
setting with property measured in acres then I'd be less concerned -- the
way these properties are lined up here though, a major change on one can
bring about drastic changes on adjoining plots.

The city is doing quite a bit of development in this area right now and
they've caused substantial environmental damage through their changes.
We're experiencing flooding in areas that previously did not puddle up, deer
are being pushed out of their regular habitats, and much more. We'll be
planting more trees in the back next spring in an effort to do a little more
to help out the local wildlife. Hopefully he'll be done with his clearing
project by then so we can plan accordingly.

James

Xref: kermit rec.gardens:256241

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:37:49 GMT, (Roy) wrote:

Another Nazi state supporter heard from. What I do with my property as
long as I own it or am making the paymewnts on it should concern no
one but me and my financer.....

Not true. Your options are wider if you own 20 or 20,000 rural acres,
but unless you own the whole planet, you *are* subject to many
restrictions. Urban/suburban, state, and federal regulations may
prevent you from planting nuisance trees and plants, allowing
fire-hazard brush and weeds to flourish, cultivating prohibited
substances, and heaven knows what else. Water rights questions have a
ripe history of regulation and crime. And litigation.

Living in some proximity to other people involves *many* restrictions.
On noise. On keeping 27 cats. On painting your house purple. On
unlicensed electrical "improvements." Even on skinny-dipping in your
own back yard.

"Warren" wrote in
newsRZsb.141574$mZ5.983466@attbi_s54:

Fay wrote:

My husband spent the last two weeks clearing underbrush and trees that
we
thought needed to be removed. We didn't go on anybodys property but
ours.
We didn't ask anybody. We had two backhoes and really cleaned up. We
also dug out the creek bed. Just who are you suppost to ask if you
want to
do something to property that you own? My Grandfather bought this
property
in 1904. We have never ask anybody when we wanted to do something to
this
property. I cannot believe we would need any kind of permit.

You must not live in the United States, or you never pick-up a
newspaper, watch TV, or listen to news or talk radio. It's hard to
believe that someone in the US would not be aware that environmental
protection laws exist, and wetlands are protected. It comes up in nearly
every election of any consequence.

I know the game warden, I guess I could ask him.

Xref: kermit rec.gardens:256376

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:36:36 -0500, "JNJ" wrote:

Yup. It's a delicate matter and I'll be talking to him first -- it's just a
matter of having everything ready for whatever direction he goes. It might
be a simple and quick conversation -- it could be a protracted battle with
ample property damage as a result of his actions. If we were in a rural
setting with property measured in acres then I'd be less concerned -- the
way these properties are lined up here though, a major change on one can
bring about drastic changes on adjoining plots.

The city is doing quite a bit of development in this area right now and
they've caused substantial environmental damage through their changes.
We're experiencing flooding in areas that previously did not puddle up, deer
are being pushed out of their regular habitats, and much more. We'll be
planting more trees in the back next spring in an effort to do a little more
to help out the local wildlife. Hopefully he'll be done with his clearing
project by then so we can plan accordingly.

It sounds as if your concerns are valid. I *hope* you can come to some
accomodation with the neighbor. It also sounds as if your city may not
offer a great deal of help. I would start at the 'switchboard' and
find the office responsible for building/development permits and
inspections, and try to locate someone knowledgable in land-use
questions to at least give you expert information. There may be others
interested in similar problems, 'though not in your neighborhood, who
might provide success/failure experiences. Unfortunately,
municipalities often assess development and taxes before considering
environmental concerns. One always thinks (this one thinks) that
"experts" are in charge. Until a secretary points out to the planning
commission that they've allowed a shopping center to be built in an
Air Force runway's crash zone. Good luck.