20K and 2.5 yr fight secures a win over HOA for RV parking

Jim Shoe wrote:
I live in a planned community with a HOA. The developers were new to the game and used boilerplate regulations. As long as they had title to more than half the lots, they had a voting majority.
No vehicles visible from the street. Not even a car. So no RVs unless you parked them behind the house in your yard. They even required prior approval to add a screen door to the front door. How ugly can a screen door be? As soon as the actual residents had ownership of more than 50% of the lots, the residents took over all the positions on the HOA board at a special meeting. The developers not only left town, they left the state.
There are still regulations, but they're voted on by the people that actually live here, and they're livable and sensible.

i'm sure that the HOA board that my employee lived in that regulated the size, shape and color of the garbage cans thought those regs were livable and sensible...two qualities that cannot be measured or defined. and that's OK for those who wish to have nearly every aspect of their lives regulated. not me, not us.

Bumpyroad wrote:

mgirardo wrote:
They live in a gated community with an HOA that allows them to keep the RV at the house. That sounds like a pretty lenient HOA. Obviously, the author of this article is biased against HOAs as there is no reason to mention the HOA in this article. The local Parish has jurisdiction over setbacks, not the HOA.

-Michael

yea, in that respect it is a fairly lenient HOA. However, the HOA can impose anything it wants to more strict than the parish. My HOA wanted to hire an attorney to keep on standby. there were at least three attorneys that specialized in HOA issues. that shows me that there is way too much litigation between HOAs and the lot owners. probably due to too restrictive/crazy impositions by the HOA. I am reminded years ago that one of the neighborhoods in a development in the DC area had a beautiful landscaping prize and the house that won the award was found to not comply with the rules and the best looking yard had to remove the offending "stuff".
bumpy

Actually, a "standby attorney", can be beneficial to a multiple housing corporation. Particularly when several rule changes are being contemplated or a new set of directors has been elected.

There is of course an overwhelming reason why HOAs/coops/condos exist: to lower costs for the individual buyers. That of course comes with certain rules/regulations that some will not agree with after AND before the fact.

First: it is possible he was not given the rules in writing.

Second, Seems to me Americans with Disabilities would also apply since the RV was customized to provide support for a disabled American.

But, I am not a lawyer.. I like it when HOA's loose though.

TOOBOLD wrote:
Did anybody look at the size of that boys wheelchair and how large it is? Has anyone thought about the turning radius that is required, so he can move in the RV? The boy is currently on a ventilator. Has anyone thought that his medical condition has deteriorated over the years and the support system needed is more extensive.

Still think they did the right thing. The generator is not sufficient to move this young man out of harms way if a hurricane is coming.

Toobold - That may all be well and true, but WE DO NOT KNOW because the article does not tell us that. The article does not tell us a lot of information. And that missing information is what's going to justify the decision or not. Do you know if they have a daily vehicle that can transport the boy to safety? The article doesn't mention their other vehicles. If they need to move quickly, a smaller, more maneuverable vehicle may be much more appropriate than a large class A motorhome. Again, we can throw in all sorts of considerations, but there are as many for them as there are against.

wa8yxm wrote:
First: it is possible he was not given the rules in writing.

Second, Seems to me Americans with Disabilities would also apply since the RV was customized to provide support for a disabled American.

But, I am not a lawyer.. I like it when HOA's loose though.

At the closing, a copy of the existing rules and regulations are generally incorporated into the signatory documents. Since most people attend the closing with their attorney and their bank's attorney, I doubt that the buyer(s) were unaware of any restrictions. Course they might not have paid attention.
I'm not a lawyer either but I have been known to tell a judge I've been thrown out of better courtrooms.....

The ADA laws were not invoked in this court case for a very good reason: there are practical restrictions to it.

I actually bored self into reading the actual court case history. Will try to post the decisions w/o violating the proprietary license of the website.

Ya, ya, the HOA has it's covenants, and those people that chose to live in the neighborhood are bound to abide by them, but I think it's kind of cheesy to complain about 2 feet of set back. You have to have a hard heart to deny these people an exception.

That's the problem with these HOA committees. They want to throw their weight around so badly, they lose sight of what's really important in life.

D & M wrote:
Ya, ya, the HOA has it's covenants, and those people that chose to live in the neighborhood are bound to abide by them, but I think it's kind of cheesy to complain about 2 feet of set back. You have to have a hard heart to deny these people an exception.

That's the problem with these HOA committees. They want to throw their weight around so badly, they lose sight of what's really important in life.

i think the argument re: a whole house generator has merit particularly when you take into account the fact that one of the parents testified that he took the RV off the property for extended business w/o his son. I've never worked with a multiple dwelling corporation that WANTED to throw it's weight around for the fun of it but have heard it said of them.

LarryJM wrote:
WOW it's amazing how many folks can misread, misinterpret, or stretch what is contained in an article. This had nothing to do with whether one could keep an RV on their property, etc. nor did it have anything to do with HOAs. It was originally about getting a 2' variance to the existing 5' setback zoning ordinance and then ultimately only about whether a judge over stepped his authority in granting that variance.

Nothing new or worthy of discussion here that might effect us at all.

Larry

Amen! I don't have much of an opinion on this other than I try to mind my own business. I do what I want on my property. Don't really care what others do.

fj12ryder wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

happybooker1 wrote:
A couple of observations: if you view the article that is one HONKING BIG rig. I *think* they could have got a shorter one.

However..... maybe all this happened AFTER they bought their house. They bought the RV, stored it offsite, no problem. Son got MS, THEN they decided to retrofit the RV (which they already had) for Son's illness and THEN found out about the 2.5' problem of parking it at their house.

AND.... whole house generators are frequently NOT usable during hurricanes or the aftermath. If the gas is shut off for broken/flooded/whatever lines -- no whole-house generator.

I'm also "assuming" they would load everyone up and evacuate the area in the RV if a hurricane was coming. I would NOT want to deal with one stored somewhere else in the panic that was Katrina, and Rita in Houston. I was here for that one.

Yes, in theory your argument makes sense, but no where in the article are any of those concerns mentioned. There is no mention of their seeking a variance. There is no mention of the zoning commission denying a variance.

Again, the article is missing the most important factors in the case: did the owners seek a variance and were denied; did they just ignore the rules and do what they wanted to do; did the zoning commission approve other variances in the subdivision but deny theirs: and so on.

Quoted from the article:
"The zoning board wouldn't let the family slide and denied its request for a variance."

And that is the slant put on the article by whomever wrote it. "wouldn't let the family slide" wouldn't be the actual ruling from either a zoning board or a court. The board denied the variance request. Why, we may never know. It could very well be for the reasons stated by many posters here, that the variance was needed because the family had a large RV which they viewed as a luxury item, not a necessity. It was not something like they needed additional 3 feet to accommodate a normal handicapped van, or needed to park in front of the house to provide easy access to the handicapped ramps that access the house. I can see where it would be a tough call either way.

toedtoes wrote:

TOOBOLD wrote:
Did anybody look at the size of that boys wheelchair and how large it is? Has anyone thought about the turning radius that is required, so he can move in the RV? The boy is currently on a ventilator. Has anyone thought that his medical condition has deteriorated over the years and the support system needed is more extensive.

Still think they did the right thing. The generator is not sufficient to move this young man out of harms way if a hurricane is coming.

Toobold - That may all be well and true, but WE DO NOT KNOW because the article does not tell us that. The article does not tell us a lot of information. And that missing information is what's going to justify the decision or not. Do you know if they have a daily vehicle that can transport the boy to safety? The article doesn't mention their other vehicles. If they need to move quickly, a smaller, more maneuverable vehicle may be much more appropriate than a large class A motorhome. Again, we can throw in all sorts of considerations, but there are as many for them as there are against.

Just something else to think about. Have you ever seen the traffic jams on the freeways when people are evacuating for a hurricane? A daily driver might be easier to move, but what happens when the batteries die for his ventilator? Are they suppose to carry a generator in the car or do rescue breathing until they get to their safe destination.

I live in California and lived 2 miles from the epicenter of the Northridge Earthquake and my 5th wheel is stocked and ready to go as my emergency kit. I cannot imagine having a child with such medical needs and not being prepared for all his needs. His electric wheelchair, mechanical lift and ventilator needs tell me this child is severely comprised.

I understand this was about the special variance, but don't think many people understand the logistics of moving a person with such medical needs and the special circumstance this is. In most locations a generator would have sufficed, but they live in a flood prone area due to hurricanes. That RV is probably already stocked with his medical necessities that may make it unmanageable in a smaller vehicle. He is on a ventilator, is a daily driver equipped with a generator that would allow suctioning if he cannot manage his secretions? He looks immobile as per the electric wheelchair and the lift required to enter. Is there enough space in a daily driver to recline his wheelchair to change his diaper? Where would there parents be able to wash their hands afterwards if they became soiled while changing him? Would they be able to keep his necessary medication refrigerated, if needed, in a daily driver? God forbid this child might have a feeding tube. Could it have been done in a smaller RV who knows? Obviously the parents felt this one could accommodate him and felt strongly enough to take it all the way to the Louisiana Supreme Court.