Harassment by neighbor for RV parking

[GJohnson]

I purchased my home in 2005 and have dealt with harassment from my next door neighbor regarding parking my motor home in my "MLS stated" parking, located on my property.

Prior to the purchase of my home, I was very specific with my real estate agent, only having three specific requirements in my search besides square footage and number of bedrooms; 1. No HOA or Mello Roos, 2. RV onsite parking, 3. A pool. According to said agent, the MLS listing for this home as well as the MLS listings for several other homes also for sale in this neighborhood, also advertised on site RV parking.

I have twenty-three documented incidents of harassment against my next door neighbor with more than half of them involving my motor home. I have received a First Notice of Violation from the City of Calimesa April 9, 2007 which was addressed and resolved due to the CMC code sited did not apply to my situation (Section 12.8.05 (a)(2)): My motor home was operative and frequently used. Now, I received an Administrative Citation again addressing my motor home, with a new CMC code, 12.4.04(b)(2).

Attempting to resolve this issue, I was informed by the city official that the City is NOT pro-active in looking for and also issuing code violations. The only reason that I am receiving one according to this official is because of the constant complaints of my next door neighbor. I asked if this was to be enforced within my housing track and/or citywide and I was told no, only if there are complaints.

I have contacted my real estate agent only receiving assistance with verification that my home was listed in the MLS, stating it provides on site RV parking. I have researched the county Assessors records but these records lack such wording. I have called my homeowners insurance company verifying my policy includes on site RV parking but I am unsure if that would even assist me in this matter.

I see this as severe harassment of a neighbor who should be living in a HOA environment, I feel this is discrimination for not enforcing this with my neighbors whose homes provide the same type slotted spot to park their RV's and also for not enforcing this citywide, however when attempting to enforce specific situations, as mine the City uses this as standard city municipal code requirements. I have searched high and low for a "grandfather clause" wording within the city municipal code and found 12.8.03(2)(b), however I have not been able to get verification and or feedback if such applies and could be my defense.

I was informed that I could present my case to the board but I have not provided the manner in which such is to be presented. I was told to give any material that you think might help you.

I appreciate your time in this matter and any assistance and/or advice on how to proceed.

 

[dee_dub]

I suspect that whether or not your house was MLS-listed as having RV parking is neither here nor there to the question of whether you can legally park your RV on your property.

How is your home zoned? 12.4.04(b)(2) applies to commercial zones. Your home might not be subject to this provision.

You're not being discriminated against by the city. Your neighbour might be singling you out, but he's free to do so.

I couldn't find a code section 12.8.03(2)(b). Do you mean 12.8.03(b)? I don't think it applies - it allows the Director to set offsite parking requirements for uses in addition to those specified in the code.

You should check with your city clerk on how to challenge the citation.

 

[GJohnson]

Question on reply

Please provide specific information as to this applying to a commercial zoned area. I re-read the municipal code from the city's website and I was not able to find such wording. I am so sorry to request this information, and; I desperately need it to fight this injustice but unsure where it came from and I honestly do not want to look like a fool with both barrels blazing when I attempt to fight for my rights with the city. Please provide me specifics so I can go to the city with both barrels. Thank You so very much!!!!!!!!!

 

[dee_dub]

I cannot provide you with the specific information you're looking for. In the online version of the code I looked at, Chapter 12.4 is entitled "Commercial Districts".

http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isa...nfo&jump=12.4&softpage=PL_frame#JUMPDEST_12.4

The provisions appear to be particularly appropriate to commercial districts. I'm just playing a hunch here that it applies to commercial districts and not to others. I haven't scoured the code to ascertain whether that's correct.

 

[GJohnson]

Thank You, I read and re-read this information and I can only say that I failed to read the word commerical until now. I am sorry to have taken your valuable time on something so clear. Again, Thank You!

 

[dee_dub]

No problem.

Good luck - it looks to me like the city is barking up the wrong tree on this one. A word of advice: going in with both barrels blazing is not always the best approach. You don't want to look as deranged as your neighbour. The city will be much more inclined to listen to reason, and may discount his comparatively unreasonable complaints in the future.

 

[GJohnson]

Response from the City

I am back and requesting assistance for my next step. Ok, first enclosed please find the letter I sent to the City regarding this situation: I apologize for having to put this information in maybe three separate posts but I would rather you understand this situation in its reality and get advise that is appropriate than not give the true situation and get advise that will waste your and my time.

November 12, 2008

The City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, California 92320

ATTN: Mr. Gus Romo
Community Development Director

RE: Administrative Citation Warning # 2008-117
Citation Date: October 20, 2008
Residence: 1012 Cottonwood Drive Calimesa CA 92320

Dear Mr. Romo,

I am humbly submitting a response to the above referenced.

I first dealt with this same issue and received notification from the City of Calimesa, dated April 9, 2007 entitled First Notice of Violation and such notice provided violation
Of California Municipal Code Section 12.8.05(a)(2). On April 11, 2007 I contacted Ms. Shannon Andrews regarding said notification received; dated April 9, 2007 and indicated that my motor home was not inoperative, we use it quite frequently. Ms. Andrews indicated that she would update her files as to such providing this issue being acknowledged, communicated and resolved.

On October 22, 2008, I received an Administrative Citation warning again from Ms. Andrews regarding complaints of parking my motor vehicle in my indicated Recreational Parking on my property. Said administrative citation warning was issued with Calimesa City Code Municipal section 12.4.04(b)(2). Again, I called and communicated with Ms. Andrews regarding said received notification.

Enclosed please find why I do not believe said warning applies to my residence:
I purchased my home in 2005; being a Ventura County resident and homeowner my whole life, I researched all the areas within the vicinity of my husband's employment and relocation, which brought my family to this community. Prior to said purchase I was very specific with my real estate agent, who was born and raised in Yucaipa therefore assuming and expecting this real estates offices knowledge of my requests and expectations in my search for my new home purchase. While searching I had only three specific requirements in my search besides the square footage and number of bedrooms. 1. No HOA or Mello Roos 2. On site Recreational Parking and 3. A pool. My residence was listed with the National Multiple Listing Service and advertised with the MLS and real estate office, as having on site Recreational Parking. Additionally, the housing track that this home was located also provides more than 80% of the houses contained within this track, recreational parking. This was clear to my husband and myself even before we purchased our home due to their being three other homes within the housing track also for sale and also advertised with recreational parking on site as mine was advertised. Additionally these advertisements and listings were with different real estate offices, as well as listing agents Enclosed please find Enclosures indicated with #1. Documents that support and verify the enclosed.

 

[GJohnson]

Continued...

Furthermore, besides the above referenced and what I would consider the most important fact of these citations non relevance, according to the Administrative Citation received October 22, 2008 and said Calimesa Municipal Code sited on such citation 12.4.04(b)(2); said code and violation according to the definition of said citation applies to commercial zones with no mention to residential zoning therefore; again a second citation that does not apply to my situation. I contacted the developer of my housing tract, Mr. Bruce Dickerson to further verify this housing track to be residentially zoned. Additionally I requested documentation of said building plans and verification of recorded documentation that defines this property information. Mr. Dickerson provided verbal verification that these houses were built with industry-defined space on one or both sides of said properties, providing recreation vehicle access as well as storage for such.

Additionally, I have twenty-three documented incidents of harassment against my neighbor next door with more than half said incidents involving my motor home. Currently I am in the process of taking my neighbor to court and suing for Order To Stop Harassment, request for a Restraining Order and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, as a result of the extent of the harassment and actions taken. Furthermore it has been brought to my attention by the neighborhood that I live that this type of complaint submitted by my next-door neighbor to the City has been repeatedly submitted on this residence and on the previous owners of my home. I would request that you research this claim and I assure you too will clearly see the pattern of complaints on this home comes from my next door neighbor. Furthermore I assume that you will also find that this said next-door neighbor also holds the greatest number of complaints submitted to the city within our housing track. The issue actually lies with this homeowner's emotional stability. It is sadly unfortunate that The City of Calimesa is vulnerable to such actions of harassment and intentional infliction of such emotional distress. Said lawsuit has not yet been filed with the Superior Court of Riverside however, I would be more than happy to provide verification of such filing when I receive notification of such from my attorney. I was given a tentative time frame of such filing to occur within the next two weeks, depending on the courts availability with scheduling around the upcoming holidays.

Finally, per my conversation with Ms. Andrews regarding said policy and procedures as well as overall stance of these issues I felt it important to provide to you my dis-satisfaction. Upon such communication Ms. Andrews communicated to me the citation dated April 9, 2007 was written by her and as a result of "being new" and "un-trained" at the time said citation was given she mistakenly had written the citation with the incorrect municipal code. Additionally she continued to indicate, "The City of Calimesa is not pro-active in municipal code violations". I requested she explain such claim and was provided that "the City of Calimesa is only a re-active agent and would only provide such citations should a complaint occur". I further requested verification if the violation I received would be enforced on all residents in my housing track and/or citywide and she indicated that it "would not, due to the other residents not being complained upon as I was." First let me start with the first citation (warning) received. Besides the fact that I have received now two different citations from the City of Calimesa with municipal codes that absolutely do not apply to my residence and/or situation, according to my knowledge, having dealt with this issue already and said issue being acknowledged as such I believe this issue to no longer be a valid issue and could even fall under such clauses as "grandfather". Second, not only was it my intent to purchase a home with such immunities as on site recreational vehicle parking, I absolutely required it, purchased my home with advertisement stating it, in a neighborhood that is surrounded and included with it and as well advertised as such, and in my mind paid what I believe to be for it as the purchase price paid for my home falls within the top 85% within the economic development for the City of Calimesa. Further, due to the comments made by Ms. Andrews, I am to believe the City's overall stance and re-active actions in my situation clearly violates my civil rights. I honestly do not believe that complaints that come from neighbors who really belong in a neighborhood that is governed by association rules and regulations when it is clear that a neighborhood as mine clearly is not should be allowed such manulipative power or should be entertained in any manner. I certainly am convicted to cease such harassment, as I will be going to a judge to plead my case.

On a personal note, I could only imagine how difficult a position you must have making decisions based on little background and zero personal experience about each situation that comes across your desk as mine is. I will therefore assist with providing a brief background of my family. As previously stated, we relocated from Ventura County in 2005 due to burnout of my husband commuting to work for three years with a distance of 128 miles one way. My husband has worked for two employers during his lifetime and until relocating to Calimesa I have worked in the education industry my entire career. It was decided that when we relocated I would stay home and dedicate my life to staying home and raising our three children. As in Ventura County my husband and I strive to give back to our community as he has assisted as an assistant basketball coach, coaching with the communities basketball league. I have twice run for an elected seat as a parent representative with School Site Council and served my two years as such with the Ventura County Unified School District and also with the Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District My oldest son is a junior at Yucaipa High School and he also works part time at Americas Tire in Colton. My middle son is also at Yucaipa High School and is Val Victorian of his sophomore class with an overall ranking in the high school population of 19th. He is also in the Junior Reserves ORJTC program with the high school and with the armed services program. My youngest daughter is a third grader at Calimesa Elementary School. Our family is very close and as a family unit our number one activity and together time is camping as well as ownership of twice a year infield camping at California Speedway when Nascar activities roll in each year. My husband and I have raised our children to know responsibility to have morals to know God and we strive to live our life in a manner that is a good example to our children. We do not even have a parking ticket or any type of violations on our records now or in our past. We have worked very hard and sacrificed to have the things in life that we have and I feel really did our homework prior to this homes purchase to find exactly what we were searching for before we committed. The city's request would cause a great hardship and provide costs that we truly tried to avoid prior to our purchase. I humbly ask that this be waived as a result of the above referenced reasons.

Due to the enclosed, as well as the provided documentation I am requesting this issue regarding my working and often used motor home, be able to remain in the on site indicated and for three years utilized recreational parking that my home provides. I thank you in advance for your time concerning this issue and if you have any questions or need clarification of any of the documents submitted please do not hesitate to contact me.


I received a call from Mr. Romo this evening stating " It is correct that there is RV parking within the city and in my neighborhood however due to now two complaints from my next door neighbor I have to store my motorhome. I questioned the violation code and was informed that because there is complaints regardless of anything I would have to store it.

What would you do in my situation?

 

[GJohnson]

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter!!!!

 

[dee_dub]

Continued...

I received a call from Mr. Romo this evening stating " It is correct that there is RV parking within the city and in my neighborhood however due to now two complaints from my next door neighbor I have to store my motorhome. I questioned the violation code and was informed that because there is complaints regardless of anything I would have to store it.

What would you do in my situation?

I'd ask Mr. Romo what bylaw provides that you have to move your motorhome simply because of your neighbour's complaint. I'd ask Mr. Romo if that's a general rule or specific to motorhomes. I might ask if he would have to cut down a tree in HIS backyard that happened to offend HIS neighbour. I might advise Mr. Romo that if the policy is simply that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, any lunatic could walk in and start complaining about everything they dislike and really put the city to work.

But mostly I'd just ask what bylaw provides you have to move your motorhome simply because of the complaint. The point of zoning bylaws is to provide for reasonably peaceful coexistence and let people do certain things on their property within reason. The bylaws contemplate that people in residential zones may store RVs on their property. The bylaws should not be disregarded to the penalty of persons peacefully using their property simply because of other unreasonable people's unreasonable demands.

If an activity can be prohibited even though it is not against the zoned uses because a concernced citizen complains, then presumably there is a hearing process where the legitimacy of the complaint can be determined.