In a message dated 03/22/2000 7:27:25 PM Central Standard Time,
fooshst@stumail.gc.cc.fl.us writes:
<< Subj: Re: Zoning and LBCs
Date: 03/22/2000 7:27:25 PM Central Standard Time
From: fooshst@stumail.gc.cc.fl.us (Steven Fooshee)
Sender: owner-spridgets@autox.team.net
Reply-to: fooshst@stumail.gc.cc.fl.us (Steven Fooshee)
CC: spridgets@autox.team.net
richard.arnold@juno.com wrote:
>
> List:
>
> The local city council recently changed the municipal code to further
> restrict the number and types of vehicles one is allowed to store on
> their property outside of a garage. The new ordinance is intended to
> address the various problems associated with 'junk' cars. Without going
> heavily into the particulars, the new version prevents me from storing a
> project vehicle outside while I am working on it (well, I can work on it
> outside, I just can't leave it in the same spot for more than 24 hours
> without running afoul of the law).
>
> As a person who enjoys working on my vehicles for pleasure (as well as
> being unwilling and too cheap to pay someone else to do it), I am not
> particularly happy about this. Not only does it prevent my tackling
> large projects, it either forces me to give up my hobby or incur expenses
> that would otherwise be unnecessary. This seems unreasonable, as I don't
> think I am the sort of person the council had in mind when they drafted
> the ordinance. Of course, neither do I think that I should be allowed to
> run a mini-junkyard on my property (I recognize there are limitations).
>
> Naturally, I think that there should be an exemption drafted into the
> ordinance. Do any list members live in an area that has successfully
> reached a compromise (for example, a limited exemption for gearheads)?
> If so, what was the compromise? I hope to convince the city council that
> a reasonable compromise can be reached -- as most of you can understand,
> I am loathe to give up or cut short a twenty-odd-year hobby just because
> the city council doesn't understand the fun to be had in turning
> wrenches....
>
> Just to give you an idea of the breadth of the new ordinance, under state
> law, if I decide that I am not going to be using a vehicle for awhile, I
> can 'register a vehicle as stored' by surrendering the plates to the
> county treasurer (for example, I've been called to active duty, or my job
> has been temporarily transferred). This allows to me save some money on
> annual fees, and avoid a penalty and back licensing fees when I put the
> car back on the road.
>
> Now, if I park the vehicle in my driveway for more than 24 hours, the
> vehicle violates the ordinance only because it doesn't display a current
> license plate and registration. Never mind that the vehicle doesn't
> otherwise violate the ordinance, the city can tow and impound the
> vehicle, and impose a fine of up $500+ (and impound fees and towing
> charges). I suspect that this problem is more of a drafting problem than
> anything, and that the city didn't intend to cause this problem (well, I
> would hope so, anyway). I've requested to be heard by the council on
> this issue next week.
>
> On other fronts, I just acquired two more MG's ($100 for the pair; one RB
> Midget, and one RB MGB). Have I crossed the line between hobby and
> obsession?
>
> Rich
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
I would think that if you can register the vehicle stored, then that
state law would take precedence over a city ordinance. How often do you
travel for work?
--
1987 RX-7 TII: The Reverseless Wonder.
1990 GS 500-E: 39.98 neck-snapping ponies.
MCMLXIX Sprite: Run, dammit! Run!
Cat: The other white meat.
>>
IS THERE A reason to COPY THE ENTIRE post, STEVE??
Ooops, I mean "Steven" (sorry) [NOT].
Ed
PS: As "hog of bandwidth" I would suspect you are "...the other white
meat...".
|