Forum Discussion
107 Replies
dodge guy wrote:
So I the speed limit is 65 then 75 is reasonable and you shouldn't get a ticket. A variance is to alleviate a hardship, having a 2-foot longer RV then you neighbors isn't a hardship. What's your issue with following the rules?bid_time wrote:
smkettner wrote:
If 2' is reasonable then why not 3', and if 3' is reasonable why not 4' , etc., etc., etc. That's why zoning administrators never make an exception for "reasonable". It's a never ending street. If the code says 6', then 6' it is, not 6' 1".
2' variance does seem reasonable.
Really! I guess you would have a kitten put down if it got a cold too!
If your statement was true, there wouldn`t be what is called a "variance"! a variance is to help someone out within reason. and I fully believe the issue at hand is within reason!bid_time wrote:
smkettner wrote:
If 2' is reasonable then why not 3', and if 3' is reasonable why not 4' , etc., etc., etc. That's why zoning administrators never make an exception for "reasonable". It's a never ending street. If the code says 6', then 6' it is, not 6' 1".
2' variance does seem reasonable.
Really! I guess you would have a kitten put down if it got a cold too!
If your statement was true, there wouldn`t be what is called a "variance"! a variance is to help someone out within reason. and I fully believe the issue at hand is within reason!- I`ll post this again.
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."
Now considering all that is going on with the family (even if their son didn`t have any health issues) a 2 1/2 foot variance is such a small issue it never should`ve been questioned. And who is anyone to tell these people how they should care for their son?
I looked on Google Earth and found this subdivision. some of the houses look to have a lot of junk in the back yard. I would be more concerned with a couple boats and some cars parked in the yard than an RV within 2 1/2 feet of a setback!
HOA`s should all be banned! smkettner wrote:
2' variance does seem reasonable.2012Coleman wrote:
If 2' is reasonable then why not 3', and if 3' is reasonable why not 4', and if 4' is reasonable .... etc., etc., etc. That's why zoning administrators never make an exception for "reasonable". It's a never ending street. If the code says 6', then 6' it is, not 6' 1". And let's not forget what someone else mentioned, they could have bought a shorter RV.
This doesn't say that RV's are not allowed to be parked at homes, it states that they must be 5 feet from a certain point - AKA setback. Their RV extended into that area by a mere 2.5 feet and some curmudgeon complained. So while I agree that they could have gotten a generator, the issue was about 2.5 feet which IMO is where the total BS is coming from.- First of all my disclaimer for those who need to 'go there' in support of all handicapped people no matter what and slamming anyone who dare ask questions without being PC.
My BL is paralyzed from the waist down.
I know and hear every day about the rights of handicapped people. He also headed up the entire 'accessible' department at Ohio State and sits on the board somewhere for the entire US on accessibility . And HE doesn't like when people use their disability where not intended to obtain special rights. That said.
Variance, setbacks, whether an RV is allowed, etc. When you read this article they choose to USE/ADD the disabled card to substantiate their case. Albiet as mentioned the resulting court decision was based on whether a judge could do that not what they were requesting. But they still had the need to stick it in there.
A handicapped person does not 'need' an RV to be able to travel in. Would it be a nice perk? Sure but it is not a 'required' daily living need.
Statement about 'needing' a generator? Insurance companies/health care provisions, if it is a matter of life and death will authorize a house generator or battery operated back up for any device they must have to support life....they most certainly would not ever approve an RV. :R
And lastly IMHO, JMHO If the family 'wanted' to travel in an RV with the family including their handicapped family member you'd THINK they would know the set backs and requirements of having an RV on their property and had bought the length of RV that fit the requirements.
Instead of buying what they 'wanted' and then resorting to 'using' their handicapped family member as a reason to get around the rules. garysol wrote:
For you and the posters you are agreeing with - quoting from the article:
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?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.
This doesn't say that RV's are not allowed to be parked at homes, it states that they must be 5 feet from a certain point - AKA setback. Their RV extended into that area by a mere 2.5 feet and some curmudgeon complained. So while I agree that they could have gotten a generator, the issue was about 2.5 feet which IMO is where the total BS is coming from.- 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 rjxj wrote:
I thought you were given the rules in writing and signed to acknowledge those rules before you bought into an HOA. I dont see how anyone can complain about what they themselves agreed to. I may just not understand it though.
well unfortunately they can modify the rules over the years from what they were originally. and it is co$tly to fight a grandfathered case.
bumpy- Do unto others as you wish they do unto you. What would the Lord do? A little understanding and empathy for those less fortunate than thee can be very rewarding.
- 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.
