Again the City Council/Planning Commission is taking up the RV parking issue.
Storage or parking in setback areas (17.64.080) states in part, "No motor vehicle, motor home, mobile home, recreation vehicle (fifth wheeler, folding camper, travel trailer, truck camper, jet skis, wave runner(s), etc.), boat, airplane, trailers (which include utility trailers that are used in your work), parts of the foregoing, or the like or building materials or discarded or salvaged materials shall be parked or stored in any required front or side setback."
The setback is 20 feet in the front and 5 feet on the side yard.
This ordinance is 30-40 years old, and does not reflect the current lifestyles of thousands of Napa property owners who enjoy partaking in travel and the numerous outdoor activities that Napa Valley and the United States has to offer. With virtually no storage spaces available in the area, it would mean that those residents would have to dispose of their recreational vehicles and change their lifestyle and standard of living.
People are also reading…
The mayor's position is that the lack of storage should not be of concern to the City Council.
As I understand it, the City Council, and some Napa residents object to the parking of recreational vehicles on the owner's property because of health/safety issues and that they impose a "visual blight" on the neighborhood. Let me cite you a similar case known as City of Euclid v. Fitzthum. The case concerns nine RVers cited for parking their RVs on their property. They were tried, found guilty and fined. They appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals and hence the lower court was overturned and subsequent petitions by the City of Euclid, first to the Ohio Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court, were both denied and the opinion of the Ohio Court of Appeals is now final. The state appellate court said that in Ohio, zoning restrictions for purely aesthetic reasons ("visual blight") are unconstitutional, and that the ordinance, to be constitutional, must be a valid exercise of police power, the power to regulate for the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. The city then tried to prove that a trailer parked in a driveway would interfere with access for firefighting equipment and could be a conduit for fire, etc. The RV owners produced evidence to show that automobiles (which were not prohibited from driveways or street parking) could be a conduit for fire and/or cause fire hazards and may be unsightly when stored outside. The Appellate Courts goes further in making its case against the city of Euclid's ordinance, but to sum it up, the Ohio State Appellate Court stated that, "Enclosing vehicles classified as trailers does not change the fire hazard propensities; does not enlarge health safeguards and it is indeed clear beyond peradventure that enclosure may diminish health and safety factors by trapping sewage spillage from portable sanitary facilities, etc."
It is evident that automobiles can and are equally "guilty" when it comes to being a visual blight or a fire/safety hazard, even if they are in running order. All one has to do is drive down nearly any street to find an automobile that falls into the category of a visual blight.
Where is the equality in the ordinance or proposed ordinance? For example, if a proposed ordinance requires that an RV be clean and covered, it should also require an automobile be clean and covered if stored or parked for longer then 72 hours. That was another point the Ohio Appellate Court made, "Where, then, are the Due Process and Equal Protection vices of the ordinance?" Few people want to live in or next to a piece of property that has become a junkyard. And that has to be addressed and those restrictions enforced. But the city of Napa should not confuse a well maintained RV with a pile of junk.
This is not just an RV parking issue. It is also a property rights issue. There have been several examples in Napa County of late regarding property rights, such as the proposed County Ordinance restricting a property owner from improving his property within 150 feet of a creek. This will cost the property owners millions of dollars in lost property values if enacted.
The City Council needs to realize that people really do live, work and play in Napa. And the more restrictions that are placed on them by their city government, the more dissatisfied they will become with that governing body.
(Dalton Fields lives in Napa.)