20K and 2.5 yr fight secures a win over HOA for RV parking
Click for Story
Forum Discussion
Toobold - I could go along with that IF they did not purchase the RV after moving into that subdivision for the express purpose of using it for that purpose.
My issue being: You decide that an RV is the best use of money for an emergency escape system for your handicapped son. Your subdivision has a rule that requires a 5 foot variance. You buy a 36 foot RV and put money into and either don't check that it will fit OR don't care that it won't fit. You could have bought a 33 foot RV that did not extend into the variance. Why should the subdivision give you an exception to the rule just because you chose to ignore the rule?
Now, if you could show that the adaptations would not work in the 33 foot RV, then why not go to the board first and explain the situation? Then sue if they refuse to give you approval.
Or, if they already had the 36 foot RV and had already renovated it for other purposes, but due to circumstances (the son's health becoming more unstable) needed the back up and had this already paid for and ready to use. But again, why not ask for the approval before doing it?
Again, there's info we don't know and that info could very easily change the circumstances of this case.
As a side note, no where in the article is there any mention of using the RV to safely remove the son in the case of a disaster. The only mention is to use it as a "back up" if the house power goes out and to use it for traveling with the son.
Again - missing information that requires readers (you and I included) to make assumptions. Without any assumptions, there isn't enough info in the article to be able to make an appropriate decision.
My issue being: You decide that an RV is the best use of money for an emergency escape system for your handicapped son. Your subdivision has a rule that requires a 5 foot variance. You buy a 36 foot RV and put money into and either don't check that it will fit OR don't care that it won't fit. You could have bought a 33 foot RV that did not extend into the variance. Why should the subdivision give you an exception to the rule just because you chose to ignore the rule?
Now, if you could show that the adaptations would not work in the 33 foot RV, then why not go to the board first and explain the situation? Then sue if they refuse to give you approval.
Or, if they already had the 36 foot RV and had already renovated it for other purposes, but due to circumstances (the son's health becoming more unstable) needed the back up and had this already paid for and ready to use. But again, why not ask for the approval before doing it?
Again, there's info we don't know and that info could very easily change the circumstances of this case.
As a side note, no where in the article is there any mention of using the RV to safely remove the son in the case of a disaster. The only mention is to use it as a "back up" if the house power goes out and to use it for traveling with the son.
Again - missing information that requires readers (you and I included) to make assumptions. Without any assumptions, there isn't enough info in the article to be able to make an appropriate decision.
