4 ms·

The article seems to skimp on selected detail. It looks like a violation of his agreement as to how many junk vehicles he can keep on the property. But it isn'

The article seems to skimp on selected detail. It looks like a violation of his agreement as to how many junk vehicles he can keep on the property. But it isn't; they're not going after him for having too much junk, they've redefined some of his covered trucks as buildings, presumably because he hadn't violated his agreement. Is that right?

troupe 3y ago
> The town filed a complaint against Maxon stating that he and his wife “significantly increased the scope of the junk cars and other junk material being kept on their property,” as determined by “aerial photographs.” I think they are saying there are many more vehicles & the amount of junk is increasing.
j-bos 3y ago
Aren't those junk vehicle (by)laws meant to prevent eyesores? If a drone is needed to see them, what's the issue?
- ilyt 3y ago
  If it was actually meant to prevent eyesore it would be about how many of them are in front of the property, not overall
- pvaldes 3y ago
  > Aren't those laws meant to prevent eyesores? If a drone is needed to see them, what's the issue? earsore