Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 528130)

I still say. Least said, soonest mended.
All's well that ends well.
and Much ado about nothing.

Originally Posted by Happinow (Post 527961)

I was hesitant to post anymore regarding my landscaping disappointments because I really felt the thread had gotten out of hand. I didn't mean to cause such a stir. I was simply saying that I was very disappointed in what was happening on the lot adjoining my property. I've certainly learned a lot with this event. Some of you missed my point completely and others understand my concerns. My neighbors initial plan was to totally enclose his lot with shrubs to make a dog park for his dog so that he could let his dog out on his property without a leash, thus creating a barrier. These shrubs would run the entire length of my golf course view and then some. I read that no barriers of any kind would be permitted in TV, so I expected his plan to be shut down. I believe his landscaper told him that he was unable to put in shrubs along the property lines if he totally enclosed his lot. He then changed his plans and left about a 10-15 foot space open so that his property was not totally enclosed, thus eliminating the term "barrier". This alteration allowed his permit to be granted. I learned that dogs do not have to be on a leash if they are on your property. I thought they did if they were outside of the home. I also learned that you can do what ever you want with your property....it's your property. I am however, greatly disappointed that my neighbors would not consider what they are doing to our view as well as our neighbors. The rest of us were kind enough to consult with each other before we landscaped to be sure we could all see the course. It was the neighborly thing to do. He could easily apply landscaping without hindering our view at all and it seems selfish to me that he wouldn't consider the views of others who have paid a premium for their lot as well. On the bright side, We love our home and our lot (still). Life goes on and we will make the best of it. Perhaps the shrubs will be a blessing after all.

Originally Posted by Happinow (Post 528143)

Thank you all for your input and opinions on this thread. I agree, it has lasted way too long. Let's put it to pasture and move on to a lighter topic! Life is too short....:icon_wink::)

Originally Posted by KEVIN & JOSIE (Post 528411)

I was so glad to hear that the owner who paid for their property is allowed to use their property for what they feel fit, as long as it is within deed restriction guidelines. It's great to know that a dog owner is allowed to let his dog run loose on the property that he paid for, as long as it is trained to stay on his property. He's living his dream! This all sounds reasonable to me. :doggie:

Originally Posted by swimdawg (Post 528583)

Wait a minute.....wait a minute! 231 posts dating back to July 12. There have been over 21,000 views. You say it is a NIGHTMARE.....and you're not going to tell how us the story ends?

Originally Posted by swimdawg (Post 528583)

Wait a minute.....wait a minute! :confused: 231 posts dating back to July 12. There have been over 21,000 views. You say it is a NIGHTMARE.....and you're not going to tell us how the story ends?

Originally Posted by Patty55 (Post 528606)

A Kumbaya weiner roast is scheduled for tomorrow night :22yikes:

Originally Posted by getdul981 (Post 528610)

When and where?

Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 528600)

In this case, the neighbour may have thought he was being considerate by shielding his neighbours from the view of his dogs.

Originally Posted by jimbo2012 (Post 528617)

What!!! how did U come to that conclusion, based on Happi's description (granted one sided) doesn't sound like that word is in his vocabulary or state of mind.

As long as he files for a permit and it's approved he's good to go.

He's fortunate that he's not my neighbor, I would have handled it differently with formal legal notice and other equitable legal means.