Legal verbiage needed for code change

[trimster]

Hopefully they don't try that angle. We have the same weight restrictions here. I'd then press code to have all motorhomes to be cited. That would be hundreds of vehicles. 

[rickeieio]

All too often, the people writing the rules are clueless.  There's one road in our development (3500 homes) that's posted "Not trucks over 7000 GVW". Duh, my F-150 would be over that IF they said "GVWR".  I pointed that out to the community manager and got a deer in the headlights look.

So, tread lightly and approach it as though your dealing with people of third grade mentality, who are on a power trip.  Trust me, some of them are......

[trimster]

Update:

Just got off the phone with head of code enforcement. Readers Digest version, they are not going to let me park it on my property because you "can not have more than one recreational vehicle" on private property. Yes. Unquestionably out of touch with todays reality. There are exceptions for those who have large properties (acres). I've put the code references below given me by them.

They tried weight. Not going to work because class A's are way over the weight of our Volvo.

They tried 'appearance' until I told them the state stipulates what a motorhome is and the physical appearance is NOT one of the criteria. As the code guy who gave me the warning said 'it looks like a semi... it's a semi'. 

The head of code also found it interesting (not in a good way) that the code dude said "I have been watching you and your trucks for 5 years." Head of code found that troubling on two levels. One that he has not been with the city for 5 yrs. And she agreed that, that kind of attention is close to stalking. Or at the lease, targeting.

So, right now they are not going to do anything until they meet again and offer me a time to plead my case. There are some form of judges that weigh in on interpreting the code some where along the line. They will see the 'only one RV on the property' and call it in favor of the city is my guess.

They don't want to offer a waver for my situation because they don't want people who get cited for having a commercial vehicle in their yard pointing to me...and having to explain why mine is okay. In my mind... that's your damn job. Just because it is inconvenient for you, not my problem. It's part of your job...that we pay you for.

Needless to say, I'm going way past pissed off at this point. They seem to like to poke you because they can. End result... more really mad people making life for a city employee hell. And I can do that if this comes out wrong.

I did ask how they justify this code when it's cross purposes with the ability for a home owner to subdivide their house. Now they have two legal residences on one property plot. How can you enforce one RV per property. Or the new one they adopted allowing  LOTs of people to rent rooms in a house as long as they are all family. Hmmm. Nobody check paperwork to see if they are, in fact, legal family. Then there's the folks who have MDT and HDT (registered as an RV) pulling horse trailers with living quarters. The trailer is registered as a horse trailer but it's also an RV. They obviously had no answer for that and she didn't even know it was a thing.

Okay, bit of venting done.

Here's the code they sent me:

13.24.040: RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS:

   A.   Vehicles, Recreational Vehicles, And Trailers Must Be Parked Upon A Hard Surface: All areas utilized for the parking of vehicles, recreational vehicles, and trailers shall be paved with a hard surface, e.g., concrete, asphalt, brick, or other hard surface approved by the director. This includes the front yard, side yard, and rear yard of the home. It is prohibited to park upon areas that have been landscaped or are reserved for future landscaping.

      1.   Exceptions: Single-family residential properties with animal rights will be allowed to store animal transport trailers. These trailers are not required to be parked on a gravel or hard surface but must be parked within the rear setback of the home.

   B.   Maximum Area: The maximum area of hard surface for the purpose of parking vehicles on a residential lot shall be restricted to not more than twenty percent (20%) of the front yard excluding the driveway providing access to the primary attached or detached garage, thirty five percent (35%) of the rear yard, and one of the two (2) side yards associated with the lot. Exception: The maximum area of hard surface allowed for residential lots with circular driveways shall be determined on a case by case basis.

   C.   Carports, Vehicle Covers: All structures attached to the dwelling for the purpose of protecting or otherwise covering vehicles shall comply with applicable building codes for the structure and with existing zoning regulations for minimum distance between main dwelling structures and side property lines. Detached carports are required to meet the minimum standards for an accessory structure and adopted applicable building codes. Where vehicle covers are used, covers shall be approved manufactured covers.

   D.   Parking Of Recreational Vehicles:

      1.   Parking Location Restrictions: Recreational vehicles parked or stored at a residence must be located within the rear or side yard of the home. Such vehicles may only be parked or stored within the front yard of a home if it is physically impossible due to natural topography or property boundaries to locate a recreational vehicle within the rear or side yard of a home.

      2.   Restricted Parking Area: No recreational vehicle shall park or extend within a restricted parking area. The restricted parking area is defined as follows:

         a.   Interior lots (noncorner lots): The street right of way, which includes the back edge of sidewalk (edge closest to the home, a minimum of 5 feet), or any area in which parking or storing of a recreational vehicle would create a traffic visibility hazard.

         b.   Corner lots: Both frontages shall comply with those standards outlined for interior lots, and nothing shall be parked that intrudes into the corner "sight visibility triangle" as defined by this code.

      3.   Prohibited Parking Locations: Recreational vehicles shall not be parked or stored within the street right of way.

      4.   Number Of Recreational Vehicles Permitted: One recreational vehicle per dwelling. The vehicle may be parked within the front yard and then only when a side or rear yard location is not available.

   E.   Parking Of Commercial Vehicles:

      1.   Parking Location Restrictions: Commercial vehicles parked or stored at a residence must be located within the rear or side yard of the home. Such vehicles may only park within the front yard of a home if it is physically impossible due to natural topography or property boundaries to locate a commercial vehicle within the rear or side yard of the home.

      2.   Restricted Parking Area: No commercial vehicle shall park or extend within the restricted parking area. The "restricted parking area" is defined as follows:

         a.   Interior Lots (Noncorner Lots):

            (1)   Any area in which parking or storing of the commercial vehicle would create a traffic visibility hazard.

            (2)   Commercial vehicles less than twenty four feet (24') in length and less than eight feet (8') in height may not be closer than ten feet (10') from the back edge of the sidewalk (edge closest to the home) or the public right of way.

            (3)   Commercial vehicles between eight feet (8') and ten feet (10') in height and less than thirty feet (30') in length shall be parked in the side yard or rear yard.

            (4)   Commercial vehicles over ten feet (10') in height or more than thirty feet (30') in length shall not be parked on a residential lot.

            (5)   Semi-tractors, trailers, or trucks shall not be parked on a residential lot.

         b.   Corner Lots: Both frontages shall comply with those standards outlined for parking or storage of commercial vehicles on interior lots, and nothing shall intrude into the corner "sight visibility triangle" as defined by this code.

         c.   Prohibited Parking Locations: Commercial vehicles shall not be parked or stored within the street right of way.

         d.   Number Of Commercial Vehicles Permitted: Only one such vehicle may be parked on a residential lot. A commercial vehicle parked or stored on a residential lot must be owned or apportioned by an occupant who resides at the residence.

         e.   Storage Of Commercial Vehicles: The storage of any commercial vehicles for a period exceeding seventy two (72) hours is prohibited except for a bona fide temporary absence of the owner.

   F.   Enforcement: The authority to enforce the provisions of this section shall be vested in the police department and with the community development department. (Ord. 12-15, 7-11-2012)

[rickeieio]

Seems simple enough.  Rent a room to your wife, so now you have two dwellings, thus two rv's.☺️

[trimster]

UPDATE:

Have a hearing on the 12th with a city administrative judge. So, I can bring the following:

- Evidence

- Whitnesses

- Legal representation (with notification to the city prior)

I can cross examine.

The judge will rule on the violation as it applies to the code, as written. The original violation was 'no semi truck parking on residence properties'. Over weeks of emails, that is now 'violation of the no more than one RV on a residence property'. Which I am technically in violation of... as are half a dozen in the 1 mile radius of our house.

I am responsible for court and city costs to hold the hearing + a $100 administrative fee. Sounds like a fine way to squelch those who want to fight citations. Make it too expensive.

Facts:

- I am in technical violation. The HDT is registered as a motorhome and I have a 5th wheel trailer. So I loose on that fact alone.

- Code enforcer said, when handing me the warning: " I have been following you and your trucks for 5 yrs." His boss said "interesting, he's only worked for the city for 3 yrs." Is this not selective enforcement or a form of stalking? How does that weigh-in legally or as part of the defense?

- Mitigating circumstances and other thoughts -

-There are NO RV rental spaces available within a 20 min drive and/or they are prohibitively expensive (Indoor @ $360/mo or more. Outdoor are averaging $80/mo). Is the burden of storage at the more expensive places, unreasonable? 18 months of $360/mo will equal the value of my 2004 trailer.

- Most RV storage have long wait lists, they are not accessible for longer rigs or have spaces only for 25' and shorter trailers currently.

- All RV storage: You are month-to-month. If you pull out for your winter excursion and drop your payments, your spot is gone and you are on the wait list when you return.

- 430,412 RVs were sold last year. 2021 is on track to add 565,848 and 586,281 more. Not enough RV storage now.

- There a trend locally, and we witnessed on our recent trip, for a truck to have a camper on the back and pull a small travel trailer. Question for the code folks: if the camper is set on the ground because the owner wants to use their truck as a truck, is there now 2 rvs on the ground. Or is the truck now an RV with a camper on the back?

-Is a horse trailer with living quarters in the front a horse trailer, or a travel trailer that can house animals? How is this different from a toy hauler ? And they are pulling with a motorhome or super-C... is this now 2 RVs?

Any help or thoughts on this would be appreciated. With the significant change in RVing during and in the current stage of the pandemic, I would think that the city needs to adapt.

The head of code is being very reasonable. She's actually trying to help. She found a form that will allow for amendments and rewording of a code to be submitted to the city council for a vote. I am going to pursue this.

 

 

[rickeieio]

Bob,

I think I'd try for what's known as a "variance", based on the fact that your truck is an "rv" only because the laws are written so that it's prohibitive to have a large truck for safety.  You might mention that there's no such thing as a "semi truck", only semi trailers and truck tractors.

You could even offer to help them re-write the code so it makes sense and is enforceable.......

[Star Dreamer]

Is your trailer registered as an RV or a trailer (like a cargo trailer or utility trailer) ? If like a trailer, then do you really have two RVs?

[lappir]

12 hours ago, Star Dreamer said:

Is your trailer registered as an RV or a trailer (like a cargo trailer or utility trailer) ? If like a trailer, then do you really have two RVs?

Or like with the insurance. They have to be connected to be covered as an RV. 

[steiny93]

Keeping in mind a judges job is to ensure the law is being followed.

Since the code says 1 RV and you have 2 RV's; what is the plan for your argument? 

If you are planning on an 'undue hardship' type argument I'm not sure that applies to parking regulations.  If you are intending to pursue a 'selective enforcement' defense I don't believe that aligns to city enforcement, rather I believe that was HOA based.

If it were me, I'd be all about trying to figure out how to get my parked RV count from 2 to 1.  Is re-registration as a different type an option for either RV as example.

Could you license a dolly and put it under your 5th wheel when parked?

[trimster]

3 hours ago, steiny93 said:

Keeping in mind a judges job is to ensure the law is being followed.

Since the code says 1 RV and you have 2 RV's; what is the plan for your argument? 

If you are planning on an 'undue hardship' type argument I'm not sure that applies to parking regulations.  If you are intending to pursue a 'selective enforcement' defense I don't believe that aligns to city enforcement, rather I believe that was HOA based.

If it were me, I'd be all about trying to figure out how to get my parked RV count from 2 to 1.  Is re-registration as a different type an option for either RV as example.

Could you license a dolly and put it under your 5th wheel when parked?

We're not an HOA. This is a city thing. Although the run it like an HOA.

"Dolly"? Not sure what you're referring to. 

[Darryl&Rita]

Dolly;

 

Don't see how it would help.

[steiny93]

13 hours ago, trimster said:

We're not an HOA. This is a city thing. Although the run it like an HOA.

"Dolly"? Not sure what you're referring to. 

On the HOA; the precedent concerning "selective enforcement" I believe that has been applied to HOA's not cities.

Concerning the dolly; I witnessed a situation where a resident was involved in a similar issue (they couldn't have a little shed down by the lake because it was a building).  So he put it on a trailer, trailer was licensed (but obviously couldn't be pulled anywhere).  The rules didn't say anything about a trailer sitting by the lake (even tho a shed was on top of it).

What if you did something similar (I was thinking the 4 wheeled style when they tow a car and need all wheels up).

 

[Chalkie]

I read this and did not see how the dolly would help but then the last sentence worked its way to the top as I went along. What a perfect way to jerk the bureaucrats around. Park truck or trailer on some other licensed and acceptable vehicle like a trailer. I wonder much of a spin factor that would create.

 

[rickeieio]

As I stated above, a "variance" might be applicable here.  Typically, a variance is granted when an unusual situation, beyond the applicants control, forces him into non-compliance..  Using a retired road tractor rather than a big pickup would certainly fall under this description.  It's not the applicants fault the DOT drew an arbitrary line describing what size truck fits what category, or that to follow one jurisdictions rules, he's forced to have two rv's.

20 years of sitting on various zoning and planning boards have given me a bit of insight on how this works, or doesn't.  In my county, there would not be a judge involved in this at all, unless it became a criminal case.  A five member Board of Zoning Appeals, made up of citizens and representatives of county council and Planning and Zoning, would make this decision.  I spent several years as citizen/president of that board.  Cases like this were common, and almost always ruled in favor of the applicant, to the dismay of the county official making the complaint.

[trimster]

Had a one-on-one with the mayor Thurs. She's intrigued at this 'problem'. Meeting with the mayor is the idea from the Head of Code enforcement. Code is genuinely trying to figure this out.

But after the meeting I met with someone from Planning and we went over the code a bit. Oh, they have a shit-load of problems now. In the line of the code that defines what an RV is.... Oh baby. 

Not included are mobile homes. Included.... wait for it.... travel trailers, 5th wheel trailers, motorhomes, ATVs, Snowmobiles, water craft (jet skis, and boats of all kinds). This is thermo-nuclear  to say the least. If the general populace of the city knew that their 4 ATVs or side-by-sides, or that their fishing boat and toyhauler puts them in violation of the 'only one RV on residential property' code... that would be really bad for the Mayor and city council. Want people to attend the weekly city council meetings... unleash this baby.

So, as it turns out, the city planner is revamping chapter 13 of the code right now. This is where all the RV stuff is located. I offered to the mayor , head of code and others, to volunteer my time to help re-write, guide, fix the existing code. They like the idea but yet to hear back from the city planner.

Another tid-bit that kinda chaps me. If I want to do a 'text amendment' (change the code), I have to pay the city $500 first, then do all the work and submit the change. Wait... I have to pay them to do their work? Not thinking so.

I did cancel the administrative hearing with the judge. All they can do is rule on the code. They have never offered a variance, order to change/amend code, etc. Useless waist of my time and my money on this avenue.

Having done due diligence over the past few weeks, I proved that there were zero RV storage rental spots available within a reasonable distance. Eye opener for them and seemingly important fact in their decision process. If the code forces you to move the RV but there's no place to move it... can they enforce the code understanding that it will cause un-do hardship and, in fact, there's no reasonable solution.

They also finally got it that I was NOT going to move the Volvo out of the driveway. The trailer would move. The Volvo is the trigger point for them but they now understand that they can't tell me which RV to move. Bit of joy in knowing the code cuts both ways.

I was also informed that I had two other violations that they were going to drop on me at some date. I just knew they were not going to stop at one. We have gravel on the north side of the property that goes back to the side of the house where we park the 5th wheel. Code violation... can't have 2 driveways unless it is approved. Which is rarely is. When I told them that the landscaping gravel has been there for more than 20 yrs. that changed the conversation. I put the gravel in before Taylorsville was a city...soooo grandfathered in. Whew.

The second one... I built steel ramps that span from the curb to near the asphalt... but not touching the asphalt. City planner has heart burn over this. "It impedes the snow plows and street sweepers." My response..." I have been here for 34 years. No snowplow ever! has come within 24 inches of the gutter. I have shoveled that snow. And if the plow comes closer, the blade with take out mail boxes." She got quiet then agreed. Problem solved for now. As for the street sweepers... ya, they drive around cars, trash cans now. I take care of the ramps, which are also designed to let water flow easily under them.

More updates coming. 

[rickeieio]

I think your volunteering to help is a good strategy.  Especially if you can maintain a non-adversarial tone.  It's been my experience that these folks generally like to be helpful, if you let them.  I have a good feeling about the outcome.

[Pete Kildow]

Man I'm happy to live way out in the sticks. No zoning or city issues to deal with. 55 acres park where I want when I want.

 

[podwerkz]

On 8/19/2021 at 4:40 PM, Pete Kildow said:

Man I'm happy to live way out in the sticks. No zoning or city issues to deal with. 55 acres park where I want when I want.

 

I agree BUT it can cut both ways. The parcel of land next to you (or anyone out in the boonies) might be bought by someone and used (or abused) in some way that you don't like. It happens all the time.

[Pete Kildow]

6 hours ago, podwerkz said:

I agree BUT it can cut both ways. The parcel of land next to you (or anyone out in the boonies) might be bought by someone and used (or abused) in some way that you don't like. It happens all the time.

Yes I agree, we have the Amish move down the road from us. Sawmill noise and smoke. But then again I live on 60 Acres. Mother in law owns 500 around that. So no chance of anyone getting any closer.

[rickeieio]

That's what I thought too.  I grew up on a 120 acres tract great grandpa bought in 1893.  Surrounded by other farm land.  But in the early 1970's, the interstate went through, spurring growth.  With growth comes traffic and stop signs and gravel pits and traffic......

Mom still owns 96 acres of that 120.  One of my brothers, a sister, and I own the rest.  Mom's 89, and when she goes, most of my 7 siblings will be looking to cash in to sell for gravel prices.  Only corner of the county that's not zoned, so it'll sell.

That's in extreme south-west Ohio.  One mile west is Indiana, with zoning, where I live.  Having seen both first hand, and having held positions on the local Planning and Zoning for about 20 years, I can assure you, zoning is the lesser of evils.

[sandsys]

12 minutes ago, rickeieio said:

Having seen both first hand, and having held positions on the local Planning and Zoning for about 20 years, I can assure you, zoning is the lesser of evils.

Friends lived in a township in Minnesota. When it began to look like a fairly close city might be looking to take them over, they quickly worked to become a city instead of a township so they would be less vulnerable to development beyond their control. It pays to pay attention to what's on the horizon.

Linda