Someone asked me a legitimate question recently. They asked me, if one person received permission for a stone border around their tree in their front yard, and their neighbor did not, but both used the same folks at the same time to install their border; why would the one without permission be ordered to remover theirs, when it is identical to their neighbor's? The answer, which some could suggest is ludicrous, is that the one neighbor did not get permission. On the other hand, their yard was in compliance. So, why would they have to remove the landscaping, if the yard would be OK if they had obtained permission? And I am not saying anything about any form of deviation to the landscaping, exact replica of their neighbors.
This is where it is totally ridiculous when folks get crazy with their "well rules are rules." If I purchased that home that had not received permission, but the yard was in compliance I would be pretty ticked off if I was told to remove the landscaping modification.
Now, a resident takes a ride into the older area of TV and sees folks in a neighborhood that have lawn ornaments. They do not know that the district they are looking at, has no specification or deed restriction regarding lawn ornaments. They go home and find a notice on their door (or in the mail, or someone comes to the door with it) that says their little frog ornament has to go. But, but, but rules are rules. Just about ALL rules are flexible. Even laws broken are flexible. Ask any judge if they have to give exact sentences to violators or do they have the discretion to be lenient. To say that there are no exceptions is hogwash and any sensible person realizes that. Before someone says that being flexible would mean abandoned vehicles on blocks in yards would be a result of someone being lenient, I say that is utter hogwash, too.
|