Forum Discussion
107 Replies
- I beg to differ. They live in Louisiana. Has anyone heard of Hurricane Katrina and it currently is hurricane season. Having the rv at their home allows them to seek safe shelter before a hurricane hits keeping their child safe. Do you remember what happened to some of the hospital generators during Katrina? They were flooded. That would be imminent death for their son. I believe the La. Supreme Court did the right thing.
- I don't think there are enough facts in the article for me to side one way or the other.
I agree that if it's a reasonable accommodation, then they should be allowed to have it on site. But, it doesn't sound like it is reasonable accommodation if he doesn't need to use it (because he has everything he needs in the house).
I might agree if they had a daily transport vehicle that became unusable and so they are using the RV to transport their son on a regular basis.
I'm not sure if I agree that it being "back up power" in case of a power outage is a good enough reason. They talk about spending $80,000 to renovate it - was that done with the express intention of using it a "back up"? If so, then I don't think it should be allowed, because they knew the rules and should have made sure it was allowed before putting that money into it. However, if they had put the money into renovating it a good while before for travel purposes, and then faced a power outage making them realize they needed a backup and chose to use it rather than spend money now on adding a generator, then I'd be more inclined to say OK. The former comes across as not caring about the rules, the latter seems more about not spending additional money when you've got something that will work for the purpose. - 2' variance does seem reasonable.
rhagfo wrote:
NJRVer wrote:
garysol wrote:
I agree with the last 2 comments. I also live in a neighborhood with a HOA and I am allowed to bring my rig home to load and unload only. I signed the HOA contract before I purchased the home so I have no one to kick but myself. These people knew the rules ahead of time and I call total BS on there explanation. They stated that the RV was needed in order for there son to live in case "The primary systems fail" . I really do feel for this family but would a whole home generator not provide the same safety net as that class A MH?
I agree. How stupid to spend $100,000 when $8000 would have provided what they NEEDED, but not what they WANTED.
I must agree with these two also. While my sympathy goes to the family and their son's condition. I believe that it is an excessive solution to the problem. I am sure that the necessary mobile equipment for care of their son doesn't need what looks to be a 35'+ RV to carry it.
Maybe they had the RV before the issues got really bad with their son? since they already had the RV and had it converted to handicapped accessible I think it is very smart to be able to keep it next to the house!
And finally for those that missed the important part of the article.......THEY ONLY WANTED A 2 1/2 FOOT VARIANCE!!! you can have an RV next to your house it just has to be set back, but they were 2 1/2 feet too long. all they wanted was a simple variance to keep the RV at the house. just like other people in the subdivision that can keep theirs in the driveway.
This is copied from the article.
"The zoning ordnance requires a 5-foot setback. When parked on side of the Cronley home, the RV extended into that setback by about 2 ½ feet. Acting on some complains from neighbors, parish inspectors cited the Conleys in April 2012. The zoning board wouldn't let the family slide and denied its request for a variance."
I think the court did what the HOA and county should`ve done from the beginning!NJRVer wrote:
garysol wrote:
I agree with the last 2 comments. I also live in a neighborhood with a HOA and I am allowed to bring my rig home to load and unload only. I signed the HOA contract before I purchased the home so I have no one to kick but myself. These people knew the rules ahead of time and I call total BS on there explanation. They stated that the RV was needed in order for there son to live in case "The primary systems fail" . I really do feel for this family but would a whole home generator not provide the same safety net as that class A MH?
I agree. How stupid to spend $100,000 when $8000 would have provided what they NEEDED, but not what they WANTED.
I must agree with these two also. While my sympathy goes to the family and their son's condition. I believe that it is an excessive solution to the problem. I am sure that the necessary mobile equipment for care of their son doesn't need what looks to be a 35'+ RV to carry it.It is a very narrow decision. It does nothing to overturn any HOA or other parking regulations regarding RVs. The ruling actually just affirmed that a Judge's ruling that the family in question had special health needs that made the RV a necessity and therefore a variance should be granted to the codes was within the power and discretion of that judge. What happened is a judge granted a variance. An appeals court said that was overstepping the judges authority and the Supreme court of Louisiana overturned the appeals court and said that the variance was within the judge's legal authority. It was actually not a ruling on HOAs and parking regulations, it was a ruling as to what a judge can and cannot legally decide.
IMHO, JMHO I have yet to know of any of my disabled friends that NEED and "RV" to accommodated their disability !! :B
Was this so-called RV really a Class B van with a auto ramp for a REAL disabled person that neighbors were ticked off because they thought it was an RV?
Or was it just someone that 'found' a way to use their disabled card to be able to park their RV?
No judge and/or supreme court certainly would not ever want to get involved with denying anything to a disabled person.garysol wrote:
I agree with the last 2 comments. I also live in a neighborhood with a HOA and I am allowed to bring my rig home to load and unload only. I signed the HOA contract before I purchased the home so I have no one to kick but myself. These people knew the rules ahead of time and I call total BS on there explanation. They stated that the RV was needed in order for there son to live in case "The primary systems fail" . I really do feel for this family but would a whole home generator not provide the same safety net as that class A MH?
I agree. How stupid to spend $100,000 when $8000 would have provided what they NEEDED, but not what they WANTED.- I lived in a HOA community in VA, the HOA was OK with me parking my MH beside the garage, but some one reported me to the county they the county said I had to park it in the back yard. I told them that they was probably 20 boats and MH in the community parked like I was, they said go get there address and they would look into it, they don't go around looking for violation but if some one report it they have to Act They was going to give me a Variance, but I moved. Still own the house but rent it out. Roy
- Seems more about making reasonable accommodations for a person with special needs.
Court made the right decision IMO.
My HOA does not allow RV parking but I would have no complaint allowing for this use. kcmoedoe wrote:
It is a very narrow decision. It does nothing to overturn any HOA or other parking regulations regarding RVs. The ruling actually just affirmed that a Judge's ruling that the family in question had special health needs that made the RV a necessity and therefore a variance should be granted to the codes was within the power and discretion of that judge. What happened is a judge granted a variance. An appeals court said that was overstepping the judges authority and the Supreme court of Louisiana overturned the appeals court and said that the variance was within the judge's legal authority. It was actually not a ruling on HOAs and parking regulations, it was a ruling as to what a judge can and cannot legally decide.
X2
