Bad news??

Go Dogs wrote:
Op here. I just got off the phone with my councilman. I told him the variance hearing didn't go our way and I felt they hadn't really listened to my reasons for a variance. They seemed to have their collective, 'no' ready, before I began my presentation. Councilman said that I could file an appeal but to not expect any different results.
I said, 'If you people don't want RVs/Boats in driveways, fine. But I see plenty of them. Why is it okay for one and not another? My lot is as bad or worse than these people that were granted a variance.'
Well, he didn't have much to say about that. Oh well, just venting to you folks. I'm lucky to have found a good storage solution. See you all camping!

Your City Council has probably adopted a regimen of sticking very close to the "letter of the law" regarding the ordinances and the requirements of a variance. Every man's home is his castle and some feel that their own particular situation trumps any of the written ordinance. When the ordinance is clearly defined, variance is the next recourse (or Conditional Use Permit). The limits of variance from those letters of the law are pretty clear too. Variance through hardship is very difficult to apply and is usually used when properties are non-conforming in a neighborhood or there is some other intrinsic property aspect about certain neighborhoods. In most small cities, adherence to the definitions of property rights is getting very "carved in stone" because tremendous amounts of Council time can be used trying to delegate which castle gets their particular needs met and which don't.

Stating that you see other violations of the parking ordinance will only get your neighbors a citation. It falls under the "two wrongs don't make it a right" clause.

IMO, your choices are pretty well defined and you don't meet the definition of hardship for variance since, with some modification to the property, you wouldn't have what you define as a hardship.

Good luck going forward with your RV situation.