In Paul Dunn’s Aug. 21 column, “Morgan, Morgan, Spare Those Pine Trees,” he uses our builder and our home that is currently under construction as examples of homeowner and builder abuses. The column contains numerous inaccuracies:

We had our lot cleared some time before selecting our builder, who had nothing to do with the clearing of the lot.

All “stately” trees at the back of the lot were preserved. No trees were removed that qualified as specimen trees as defined in the Pinehurst Development Ordinance.

As far as how big or small our home is, Mr. Dunn had every right to respond to our plans before we received the permits to begin construction. Dunn’s reference to our using “every inch of space legally allowed” is grossly inaccurate, as our lot size permitted us to build a much larger home than what we are building.

And thanks, Mr. Dunn, for such a grand welcome to the neighborhood and to Pinehurst. Using us, our property, and our builder as examples is not what we call neighborly and not what we thought the Pinehurst spirit to be. Maybe in your next dissertation you can use examples in a way that do not single out homeowners, their property location and their builder to make your point, as misguided as it typically is.

Concerning Mr. Morgan, we support him and his concerns regarding any potential Pinehurst tree ordinance. Thus far, printed language for the potential Pinehurst ordinance appears discriminatory and would cause the cost of home construction to rise unnecessarily. We believe that this is an issue requiring far more research by village officials.