Mr. Neuman is correct. Taxpayers have the right to try and preserve their river view, for all the reasons he gave. If Barbara Farabaugh would prefer trees to river that is her right also. Each homeowner has indiviual rights. sincerely,elizabeth vomero

When this issue is addressed, I hope that some attention is paid to the obstruction of views by structures (ie. Moulton's big house, built in the place of a home that rose less than half that height).

Trees are much less obstructing than buildings. Trees are leafless for a good bit of the year - a building maintains a complete blockage year round. A tree is not a solid mass, but consists of branches and leaves in summer, which give a delightful filtered glimpse of the river through the boughs, and which allows for the movement of air and light.

I maintain that the blockage of views by structures is a more grievous issue. Trees can be pruned (without topping) to provide a pleasant view - but a building will sit as a complete impediment for the full lenth of its life.

So...when addressing view preservation, please don't limit discussion to trees, when the more serious damage is done by the inappropriate construction of an overly large home.

Just want to add, what's more damaging and sad then losing a river view is the diregard the neighbor [eg.moulton] has for the person who loves the view and merely wishes to see it. I would never want to deny my neighbor that. sincerely,elizabeth vomero

Erecting a house that overshadows or in the case of Moultons castle dwarfs the house next door is simply disrespectful. I sincerely think that the master plan should contain language to stop this overshadowing.
simply selfish

Mr. Neuman is 100% correct. He as a magnificent view for which he pays a great deal in taxes for having such. Take away his rights to protect his view, then you have to cut this taxes. His home is beautiful, but very modest. The premium is the view. As a Village tax payer I am not interested in making up the difference in lost revenue the Village would see if in fact they were forced to lower the taxes of those with a view. I also happen to think the Moultons home is beautiful and has only brought more value to the neighborhood. What had been there previously was an eye sore.

Mr. Neuman's property rights end at his own property line. He cannot compel a neighbor to do something he doesn't want to do with his property. He can offer to purchase Mr. DeGroat's property, and then cut down his own trees. Or he can move. Or he can just be thankful and happy with the view that he does have.

One of the issues that was raised was the intent of the view preservation law. it was not intended to serve individuals, but the greater populace. Now that puts a whole different spin on it. It then becomes 'what is good for the community' and not 'what is good for the (egocentric) homeowner'.