Community Forums

mythplaced · 12-06-2019, 07:39 AM

https://www.wpbf.com/article/woman-l...legal/30141559

https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod...g?resize=660:*

steve52 · 12-06-2019, 07:47 AM

She owns the property, and there is no zoning law prohibiting her from parking her RV on her property.

momdoc · 12-06-2019, 08:23 AM

Sounds like she owns the property and there is nothing illegal about it. Hopefully the city will wake up and by the property or maybe a couple of the condo complexes can buy it.

**JohnRR** · 12-06-2019, 08:27 AM

Maybe no law now but you can bet there will be one coming in the future.

winniman · 12-06-2019, 08:43 AM

7 grand a year taxes on a piece of vacant land. No wonder she wants to live on it. You cant build on it. If you cant even park your rv there, what good is it.

gatorb8 · 12-06-2019, 09:13 AM

I love it! If someone wants to change it, buy it!

OlYeller · 12-06-2019, 09:39 AM

I wonder how she empties her holding tanks?

twogypsies · 12-06-2019, 11:10 AM

Wonder if she been through the hurricanes or did she move in recently? The RV doesn't appear to be level... wouldn't work for me!

Dutch Star Don · 12-06-2019, 11:18 AM

I understand the point she is trying to make and agree with her (at least from what the article provides). I would have parked something much more wretched on the beach.

Gary RVRoamer · 12-06-2019, 11:23 AM

If Deerfield doesn't have a zoning reg prohibiting that, it's probably an oversight that will get corrected soon. Most counties and municipalities only allow people to stay in an RV overnight if it is in a designated RV park. Even where I live far outside any city in north central Florida, I've been turned in twice for allowing people to sleep in my RV overnight. Always by some busybody, not a neighbor. The zoning guys even apologize, but they have no choice but to enforce the regs once there is a complaint.

johnhicks · 12-06-2019, 11:40 AM

Deerfield Beach City ordinance:

It shall be unlawful for any owner of a recreational vehicle, bus, boat or trailer to park any recreational vehicle, boat, bus or trailer on residentially zoned property within the city except as provided for in sections 66-119—66-123 and except for such a vehicle or boat which is actually in transit and parked overnight in the parking area of a licensed hotel or motel and owned by a person who is a registered guest at such motel or hotel. The special magistrate shall have the jurisdiction and authority to hear and decide alleged violations of the provisions of this subsection (b). Alleged violations shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of article VI of chapter 2 of this Code.

It's probably also forbidden by Broward County Code but I didn't look it up.

GypsyR · 12-06-2019, 11:56 AM

Without the "except as provided for in sections 66-119—66-123" it sounds like you can't park the little trailer you use to transport your lawnmower in your own back yard. Could be but I have a doubt. I'd have to see the exception sections too to make any sort of call at all.

hohenwald48 · 12-06-2019, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnhicks

Deerfield Beach City ordinance:

It shall be unlawful for any owner of a recreational vehicle, bus, boat or trailer to park any recreational vehicle, boat, bus or trailer on residentially zoned property within the city except as provided for in sections 66-119—66-123 and except for such a vehicle or boat which is actually in transit and parked overnight in the parking area of a licensed hotel or motel and owned by a person who is a registered guest at such motel or hotel. The special magistrate shall have the jurisdiction and authority to hear and decide alleged violations of the provisions of this subsection (b). Alleged violations shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of article VI of chapter 2 of this Code.

It's probably also forbidden by Broward County Code but I didn't look it up.

I gotta' believe that if the code section you quoted was all it took she would have been removed long ago. I suspect you haven't found all the applicable regulations but I bet the city lawyers and the woman's lawyer have a pretty good idea what all the applicable laws say and it's probably a lot more than your quoted section.

I've always thought a taxing entity should be required to purchase a piece of property for whatever appraisal value they use to tax the property if the owner chooses to sell at that price. That would stop most of the over inflated property tax appraisals that cities come up with to raise tax revenues.

If she is actually paying $7,000 in taxes I imagine the tax appraiser has the property appraised near $1,000,000. If it's really worth that you'd think the city would be glad to buy it from her for half that.

Actually, I did a little more research and found that the location of the motorhome is on a piece of privately owned property zoned as zoning classification "S". Defined as beach and recreational. Since it is not zoned as residential space then section 66 does not apply.

Ljwt330 · 12-06-2019, 12:46 PM

I suspect that her lot, located between the water and some point inland, is not zoned residential and therefore not subject to the zoning restrictions quoted, above. What the zoning is on that parcel has not been made clear but it's certain that her attorney knows that she has no zoning violation.

In the background, you can see the condos and homes, but they clearly are not within the same area, close to the water, as the RV owner. Those lots are zoned residential and subject to enforcement. Hers appears to be otherwise. The article alludes to "public use" of her land and ones alongside, for "years," and refers to her desire to see the land used by the public as well.

The stumbling block appears to be the price. It is not over $1 million as suggested. The article states, according her attorney, the city is unwilling to "pay the $500,000 price tag." The city can certainly move to eminent domain procedures, but those require payment of a "fair price" for the property, and given the location, her asking price may not be out of line. I wouldn't be surprised if the city has already thought through the eminent domain tactic but opted against as they may find themselves with a court decided amount that exceeds her asking price.