About that citation for "excessive" vegetation: The inspector didn't show up at the hearing, so the hearing officer declared it dismissed for lack of prosecution. Kind of a letdown, actually.
My neighbor across the street told me she had seen somebody photographing my furry front yard,
formatting link
I assume it was the inspector. Maybe they studied their prints and realized that it formed the right backdrop, after all, for the fake wooden mushrooms I had "planted" earlier this year
I find it hard to tell from the picture. I can't tell if the vegetation is weeds or a groundcover. Also, there is no context. I see similar yards in the "old money" section of the city. These lots are planted with groundcovers like ivy, creeping phlox, vinca, etc. because it is too shady for grass and the slope is not safe for mowing. That said, they don't look unkempt with tall weeds growing in them nor are the edges spilling over the hardscape. I think that the strip near the street looks shaggy. I think it could be much better, and as a gardener, I would look at is as a lost opportunity. I guess it depends on how you approach life. Lots of people think of gardening and landscaping as a necessary evil, sort of like doing dishes, and would never consider doing more than the absolute minimum. It's funny though, how when people put their house on the market, they understand the impact that landscaping has on the home's value.
Me too but it depends where you live. Large adjacent development would probably arrest him too. My small neighborhood, compared to one of my next door neighbors, his yard looks highly manicured. Me, I like things a little wild, and would be out of place in some of the big suburban cemeteries like the big development near me. Frank
Where I grew up, a traditional English cottage garden was viewed as being worse than a car up on blocks. Xeroscaping (although I didn't know anyone who even knew that term, if it even was invented yet) was also frowned upon. And don't even think of naturalizing crocus in a lawn. They might as well have been dandelions.
Many cities have noxious weed ordinances that they use to justify going onto inner-city vacant lots to mow them. The problem comes when the people who are enforcing the ordinances have no gardening, horticultural or botany experience. Anything taller than ankle high better have a flower they recognize, or have woody stems so they can call it a shrub.
Ornamental grass? To them, Kentucky Bluegrass is the only ornamental grass allowed, and it better be mowed. Ground cover? You mean Kentucky Bluegrass? Hollyhocks, lilies and gladiolus, if not in bloom, are far too tall, and must be weeds.
They'll write the ticket for anything. If the property owner mows it down, they were right. If the property owner doesn't respond, someone will mow it down for them. And if the property owner challenges, well, maybe then they'll send a qualified person out to check. Maybe. Maybe they'll just take a few pictures, and count on the judge not caring about anything other than how bad it looks in their poorly taken pictures.
Meanwhile down the street there will be people dumping chemicals on their lawn in such quantities that they're turning it into a future Superfund site who are allowed to continue to assault the environment, pollute the soil and ground water, and poison the neighborhood pets and children. If the only things they have that are higher than ankle-high are some foundation shrubs too close to the foundation of the house, they're okay.
On the other hand, I'm not thrilled with landscapes that make walking down the sidewalk an obstacle course. I don't like vegetation that blocks traffic signs. And I don't like tall shrubs so close to the corner that I have to pull out into traffic from the left just to see if there's any traffic from the right. When it comes down to these safety issues, I don't care if they're weeds, or expensive specimens.
All that said, I'm not sure I like what's in the picture. There's not enough context to tell if it looks good. But it doesn't appear to be a safety problem, and, as far as I can tell, isn't neglected. What must be the most frustrating about this is they apparently never clearly articulated what they thought the problem was.
"It violates the ordinance." "How?" "It just does." That's not a very satisfying exchange. And even though this ticket was dismissed, without knowing why it was written in the first place, it's not a victory. New tickets could be on their way, and unless they state how or why, there's no way to really address the what.
enjoy sophisticated gardens of the "natural landscaping" type. My wife and I like to visit the National Arboretum, about 15 minutes away. I'm a fan of their "American Garden," or whatever they call it.
However, I'd rather spend my outdoor leisure time hiking or roaming the city (looking at other people's houses and gardens). So when I bought this property, my first house, I decided to manage whatever was there using minumum effort. My wife, who came into my life several years after the house did, has an amazing knowledge of flowers for somebody who grew up on the mean streets of D.C. She has more conventional gardening biases, but I told her she could do whatever she wanted and I would foot the bill for materials as long as she did the work. Turns out she has an inordinate sensitivity to mosquito bites that's apparently gotten worse over the years, to the point that our next place of residence will be somewhere in the US where there are no mosquitoes. This and other health issues have limited her will as much as her ability to carry out any gardening plans. (And she hates DEET.)
In the meantime, I noticed that the mix of vegetation on my lot was evolving in interesting ways, and I've tried to favor certain stuff by removing other stuff. For example, I've come to realize the extreme awkwardness of the site, perched up above that high retaining wall. So I've tried to arrange for the vines to cascade off the top and literally take the edge off, visually. I cut off the tops of the trees that had been growing from the alley and supporting the vines and bundled the vines with cord held down with stakes. As another example, the oak tree at the front corner is going to have to go, since it's started to separate the retaining wall, so I'll cut it down next winter -- when its branches will be bare and it'll be easier to get used to its absence...
As I recall you were to receive the name of the complainant at least by the hearing. Have you spoken with the complainant yet and come to an understanding? Based on your pictures it does look as if many would find your "landscaping" to be a collection of weeds and your philosophy to be a rationalization. The sidewalk is a public area which you must maintain, yet it is also overgrown. I suspect you will be hearing from the yard police again. It is disappointing that you did not have your day in court since you are now in legal limbo.
Just to let your know, LLBean and several other outdoor stores (EMS, REI, etc) are carrying "Buzz-Off" clothing that is treated with a natural substance derived from pyrethrins. Lasts through 25 washings and than you can spray it with the same stuff for 6 more weeks with each spray treatment. We used this on our vacation up to Vermont and it worked extremely well! I am bugged by bugs all the time, especially the biting type! Look for this clothing - this is not an ad, just something to help us poor gardeners who get bugged all the time!
This is the same implication that I expected the inspector might make at the hearing, so I was prepared with a clarifying photo:
formatting link
any case, government never returned my phone call to find out who the complainant was, if any. And because they didn't appear at the hearing, I'm confident there was no complainant. Whatever else I may think of the Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs -- the D.C. govt. authority in question, I believe they wouldn't abandon a real complaint by a real citizen.
In fact, just this morning I think I figured out the true circumstances of the citation. Although the mystery has been intriguing to me, it may be boring for some readers -- they may move on to the next thread...
As I said, my neighbor was cited at the same time. But she got a different form of ticket, even though it was for the same code violation, section 800.10, basically for excessive vegetation over 10 inches tall. The one she got -- let's call it form A -- gives seven days to correct the condition or the city will do it itself and send a bill. There's no option to ask for a hearing, but there's an obscure paragraph on the back that says the citizen may appeal the citation in writing within the seven-day time limit. Brutal, eh?
The other form of citation -- let's call it B -- is the one I got. It is simply a $100 fine, but there is a clearly-stated option to request a hearing.
We both were cited in the same week. On the preceding Saturday I had noticed a crew mowing the dense growth from a small triangular park nearby. This was in May, after a wet spring. So it would seem that the city came out for seasonal cleanup and wrote citations on nearby property owners who appeared to need one themselves. In fact I remember trimming my sidewalk strip on the same weekend I saw the crew out there. Since I like to wait until the dandelions have gone to seed (they're wildflowers, you know) before my first mowing of the season, it's possible that the grass really was much taller than you see in the photo.
But why did my neighbor and I get different forms? And why was mine signed not only by a different person, but one who was not an inspector, actually, but the chief of inspectors?
As it happens, last year I got a citation for the same code violation, but on the form A. The circumstances of that citation are an even longer story that -- trust me -- has no bearing on this one -- except that I spoke to the chief then and made clear that if the city was going to cite me I expected to have the opportunity to get a hearing.
So now I think what happened this year is that the crew wrote form A citations on my neighbor and me. Then the chief intervened, writing a new citation for me himself on form B, attempting to do me a favor -- maybe even dating it incorrectly to make it fatally flawed. And if he wasn't on site, this would have come out at the hearing also.
In the end, this episode seems to be more about politics than law. Far from being in legal limbo, I'm confident that the city won't bother me again for a long time.
After reviewing the pics the officer probably figured that retaining wall would be falling over in less than 6 mos anyway, and the overgrowth would take care of itself.
So, if there was a complainant, you don't know what problems to address to satisfy him. You seem eager to believe that there is no complainant but in the absence of a complainant the ticket writer is the complainant. You need to figure out what is causing these complaints. I don't understand the point your pictures are intended to make. They show a poorly maintained side walk/right of way and a retaining wall that is leaning into the right of way. The vegetation above the retaining wall is not encroaching into the right of way but still this is not a picture you want to produce in court. This picture speaks of long term neglect. Since you've now received multiple tickets you should try to do what is necessary to prevent a city work crew from trimming your land at your expense. Perhaps you should get a landscaper in if you don't know what to do.
I hate to say it, but I agree. This yard looks virtually abandoned from the street level (picture a3). I much prefer the natural look, but this does not quite cut it. Natural is not the same as overgrown.
One quick task that will make the property look better it to remove the weeds at the base of the walls. The vines draped over the wall do soften the edges, but they are also drawing attention to the base weeds. These plants are probably contributing to the weakness in the retaining wall as well by breaking the bricks with their roots.
Next, selective thinning of the vines would be in order to make the upper parts of the garden look more tamed.
Lastly, changing the vegetation of the devil strip from grass to a low maintenance, low growing groundcover will leave little maintenance. Or, get a reel mower and make mowing a 5 minute ritual on the weekends.
I've seen sidewalks narrow, and occasionally curve. But that curve as it narrows in the middle of a slab, with no difference in the apparent vintage of the concrete very much looks like it's not the pavement that narrows, but the vegetation that's overgrowing unevenly. There also appears to be a plethora of noxious weeds mixed in there, too.
This picture may put the rest into better context, but I'm afraid not in a favorable light for you. It also highlights the disrepair of the retaining wall. Lush vegetation, ala cottage garden, is one thing. But this last picture pretty much clears-up that this isn't lush vegetation, but an unmaintained and unmanaged yard.
The more you tell us, the more it's looking like you're not just an innocent victim with an alternative landscape plan, but someone who has let the weeds take over, and the retaining wall deteriorate. If you're going to bring in pictures to defend your yard care aesthetics, you could at least have swept-up the dead leaves, and pulled a few of the more obvious weeds before taking the pictures!
Most of the houses older than 50 years around here have tilted walls. I've been monitoring mine for the 19 years since I've lived here and it's added about an inch to its outward tilt in that time.
Bringing the retaining wall into this shows that you guys live in gated communities or similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into this part of town. Your standards are irrelevant.
I welcome creative suggestions for my site that involve trimming or selective removal,
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.