Draconian zoning laws!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Cricketdaddy

Cricketdaddy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Posts
308
Location
Los Angeles
I received a heads up yesterday from the FMCA urging me to attend a council meeting tonight in our L.A. County town of Glendora, where the planning commission and city council have decided that RVs of all sorts are eyesores and need to be eliminated from our own backyards and driveways! The proposed zoning change does allow for some minor exceptions but basically all MH owners in our lovely little community would be forced to find expensive and inconvenient storage.

Here's the part that gets me -- one of the requirements for those few citizens whose yards are large enough to skirt the ordinance is that an RV be hidden by a six-foot solid fence and/or a screen blocking its view through wrought iron gates. How is a six-foot fence or screen going to relieve my neighbors from the offense of my brand new $100,000, 12-foot-tall eyesore?!!

This is a case of government intrusion to nobody's advantage at a severe penalty to those of us who bought our homes BECAUSE they had room to park our RVs.

Anybody else run across this problem elsewhere?

For details, go here: http://www.ci.glendora.ca.us/news/rvstaffreport.pdf
 
This is a continuous problem in many locales.  That's why FMCA, Escapees and Good Sam have people dedicated to helping out RVers in fighting these ordinances. 
 
Good luck in your fight.  Best to attend these meetings and keep an eye on the ding a lings that have nothing better to do that make it hard for others.  Tell them if they don't like it move.
 
You may also wish to check out grandfather rules... And/or sue them under the concept that they can not suddenly disallow something they have allowed you to do for years.

I won't guarantee success. (in fact the odds are not good) but I've seen it happen right

however in the case I saw it happen a permit was granted to construct a tower which otherwise violated the city's max building height ordinance.  The permit was temporary however but it had been renewed a time or two.  The last time however the city balked at renewing it.

The petitioner (Citizen) took a survey of city commissioner's homes and found that, IIRC all but one of them had antennas (Television) higher than the law allowed. (That was the funny part, it was, after all an antenna tower)

The judge ruled that a permit to construct, once granted, could not be rescinded AFTER the structure was completed.  The tower stands today. he did not have to take it down.

I kind of like that judge
 
Good luck Dave. We went through somtehing similar. Here's the story, followed a few weeks later by enforcement. We ended up reluctantly building a fence.
 
I failed to mention another requirement that would be comical if it didn't put me in a literally impossible position. The new ordinance will require that those "eyesores" that do meet the rules have to be stored on a concrete pad. This is the same planning commission that won't allow me to pave my driveway, front or back yards, because it would ruin the integrity of the heritage of our 100-year-old home!
 
I would think you'd have some kind of argument with that.....a rule that prohibits you from doing what another rul requires you to do. I wouldn't think that's legal. But then you live in California so who knows. :)

Wendy
Death Valley


 
We put a stop to it in Redwood City, CA when they almost had a riot at the City Council meeting and the Council members quickly adjourned the session and almost ran out the door.  The next meeting was more orderly and most everyone spoke against it.  Jerry quietly convinced the council memebers during the break to table the issue - which turned out to be indefinite and now long forgotten.  The idiot who proposed it was voted out at the next election.  One thing we did was point out that the U.S. Supreme Court has already told a town in Ohio (can't recall which one) that aesthetics cannot be used as a reason to exclude a group of vehicles.  Safety is another matter entirely.  If a specific vehicle is blocking views at an intersection and on a public street then it can be ticketed - but that's usually covered by the vehicle code.

Fight it!  Attend meetings and make your displeasure known. The aforementioned groups have materials available to help people fight illogical and impossible-to-enforce equitably ordinances.  Good luck!

ArdraF
 
VERY interesting. I'll dig around for that Supreme Court ruling. Thanks, Ardra!

At the last minute I wasn't able to attend the city council meeting this week and am still waiting for the minutes to be published. One of the councilmen has been in touch with me via email and is giving me cautious encouragement about my particular situation. Our motor home is virtually invisible from the street unless you are standing directly in front of our driveway. Even so, I'd probably be required to put up a solid screen to cover up our $16,000 custom-designed wrought iron fence. All of which is beside the point because this is a matter of serious concern for hundreds of RVers in our city. We have 102 FMCA members here.

I'll let you know how it shakes down.
 
Dave, it's possible the Supreme Court ruling was in the mid-1970s.  We think it was published by the FMCA, but it will also be in the Supreme Court rulings.  Wish I could remember the name of the town.  It was a relatively short name of maybe 6 or 7 letters.  Since then cities try every which way to circumvent it if that's what they want to do.  In Redwood City, the fellow who started it made it so inclusive that worker's trucks were considered as RVs and the local gardeners, construction crews, etc. were at the forefront of the objection because it meant they would have to store their trucks every night and then come home to their apartments in a car which many couldn't afford to own, not to mention the cost of storage which wasn't even available (people store boats and RVs 50-60 miles away because there's so little land available for storage lots).  It also came out that the same fellow wanted to ban working on your car in your garage with the door closed.  Turns out he was a realtor and they often are who spearheads these anti-RV ordinances.  They want the city neighborhoods to look perfect so they can sell more houses.  Tough on them!  The rest of us have our lives to live too.

ArdraF
 
There's info on that Supreme Court ruling here.

Ardra, you have an excellent memory - Euclid Ohio, 1974

 
Ardra,

I hear ya. The zone amendment proposed for Glendora refers to RVs as "eyesores!" I told our city council my brand new, $100,000 "eyesore" is behind a new, $20,000 rock wall and custom-designed wrought iron gate. Our home is something of a showplace and having made it so I can't afford $200-$300 a month for storage!

I'm all for keeping beat up, broken down motor homes and trailers off public streets but a lot of these local government types are shoe salesmen who get drunk with power.

No offense to shoe salesmen.  ;) (Unless you are also a city councilman drunk with power.)  ;D
 
Cricketdaddy said:
I'm all for keeping beat up, broken down motor homes and trailers off public streets but a lot of these local government types are shoe salesmen who get drunk with power.
Click to expand...

Now you've hit the nail on the head.  It's the beat up, broken down stuff that makes a neighborhood look run down.  Unfortunately, it seems if you let one motorhome, trailer, etc sit on the street or driveway you have to let them all.  I have no problem with an ordinance requiring you keep your stuff behind a fence - at least you can keep it on your property.  It's that way where I live, consequently it took me a little longer to find the right property that would accomodate what I need.  I must say our neighborhood looks good with the TT's etc behind the fences.  A lot more "street appeal" to the area -vs- other areas where there is junk littering the streets, driveways, etc.
 
Riverdog said:
I have no problem with an ordinance requiring you keep your stuff behind a fence - at least you can keep it on your property.I must say our neighborhood looks good with the TT's etc behind the fences.  A lot more "street appeal" to the area -vs- other areas where there is junk littering the streets, driveways, etc.
Click to expand...

Does that mean all "stuff" behind a fence? (bicycles, trash cans, cars, barbecues?) Or is it just RVs that should be kept behind fences? I don't see how my 2004 Winnebago parked in my driveway makes the neighborhood look trashy. Folks down the street have a junky old car that's a lot trashier looking than my motorhome. I would think there were better ways to make a neighborhood look nicer than banning RVs from sight. JMO

Wendy
Death Valley
 
Wendy it appears you have selective reading between the lines.  If not you would have picked up on my statement that says "Unfortunately if you let one motorhome, tt etc park on the street or driveway you have to let tem all".  The "Unfortunate" part is perhaps many don't look bad (as I'm sure is the case with yours) - but sometimes the really trashy ones are a real eyesore.  So....IMO I don't mind parking my TT behind the fence and expect the others in our subdivision to do the same.  If someone doesn't like that restriction then they should purchase somewhere else.

That said, I feel if you buy in an area where there is no such ordinance, then later if they add an ordinance you should be grandfathered in and therefore exempt.

As to your other statement - would bother me if everyone kept their bbq's etc behind the fence too.  As a matter of fact I can't honestly say I see anyone with them out front anyway.
 
Riverdog said:
...I feel if you buy in an area where there is no such ordinance, then later if they add an ordinance you should be grandfathered in and therefore exempt.
Click to expand...

That's the issue I had with our county "clarifying the building code" years after the properties were built. We live in a water-based community where almost every house has one or more boats in their back yard (many are either permanently in the water or on hoists, ready to launch any time). It's inevitable that folks with trailerable boats will have an empty boat trailer or a boat/trailer combination in their yard. We bought in this community with our eyes wide open to that.

As I said to the enforcement officer (some kid in an office) on the phone, "you're suggesting I put up an ugly fence as a more aesthetic alternative to an almost inconspicuous boat trailer with no boat on it".

When we bought our prior house (new) it was a different story. Although we had a large side and rear yard, the CC&Rs clearly stated "no trailers or RVs in side or rear yards for the first 7 years". I waited 8 years before putting in a 40'x15' concrete pad in the side yard. The coach was behind a fence and hidden from our neighbors by trees and other plants.
 
OK, good info. Does anyone know the results of the effort in Napa? Did they get the proposed ordinance thrown out?
 
Riverdog said:
Wendy it appears you have selective reading between the lines.  If not you would have picked up on my statement that says "Unfortunately if you let one motorhome, tt etc park on the street or driveway you have to let tem all". 
Click to expand...

Actually, I wasn't reading between the lines. I read your statement about having to let all RVs park if you let one park. Which is what I have a problem with.....because one person might park an ugly RV, no one can park an RV but anyone can park an ugly car. Just doesn't make sense to me. And you did say that your area looks better than "other areas where there is junk littering the streets, driveways, etc." Not unslightly RVs, but junk. How about rules against "junk" outside the fence.

I know we all want to keep our neighborhoods nice looking but sometimes cities and HOAs go overboard.

Wendy
 
Tom said:
"no trailers or RVs in side or rear yards for the first 7 years".
Click to expand...

So after you've been there 7 years you can park one of those ugly RVs in your yard? Kind of a funny rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,209 (members: 31, guests: 1,178)

Forum statistics

Threads
131,933
Posts
1,387,742
Members
137,684
Latest member
kstoybox
Back
Top Bottom