news-record.com

NEWS

High Point says 'no parking on the grass'

Monday, August 17, 2009
(Updated 8:22 pm)

High Point residents can't park willy-nilly across their yards after High Point City Council approved text amendments to its development ordinance Monday night.

Changes also limit the number and location of disabled vehicles stored outside. Only one disabled vehicle per household will be allowed in yards and must be placed behind the front building line of the principal building.

When in front or side yards, vehicles must be parked on improved areas, meaning areas that are graveled or paved. Those improved areas also cannot exceed 50 percent of the yard.

The city enforcement officer will investigate complaints and will issue citations with civil fines of $10. A $25 dollar late fee will be accessed if the ticket is not paid in 15 days.

Residents Beverly and Joe McCabe of Birchwood Drive welcomed the changes. They said that it's a nuisance when persons park in their yards. "It's a serious offense to those of us who try to keep up (our properties)," Beverly McCabe said.

Resident Rudy Frazier of Lyndhurst Drive said that the city should look at ways to control the number of families living in a home. He said often there are three to four families crowded into one house. And with that comes many vehicles, often times parked in yards.

City Attorney Fred Baggett said it is difficult to control the number of families in a household because you'd have to define how many persons or families are allowed in a home, decide who is a relative and decide how to enforce any limits.

What about those properties that have several junk cars collecting in backyards, with tall grass growing up around them, Councilman Mike Pugh asked.

Planning officials said junk vehicles are enforced under a separate ordinance.

Planning staff also said that vehicles would not be ticketed when they are parked in a yard for a family gathering or other event. The changes only target persons who habitually park in the front of properties and side yards.

Both vehicle owners and property owners could be ticketed for violations.

Alison Spradley of the High Point Realtors Association's property management council asked the city council not to punish landowners for their tenants' violation of laws.

The council disagreed with Spradley and said that landowners have the responsibility to control what goes on at their properties.

The amendments passed 8-1, with Councilman Bill Bencini voting against.

Bencini said he believes it would be difficult to enforce the ordinance during the evening and weekend hours, when residents are most likely to be at home. Plus, there's too much government control of people's properties, he said.

City Manager Strib Boynton said staff would respond to violations on a complaint basis, even on the evenings and weekends. "Whatever it takes to enforce it," he said.

 

Contact E.A. Seagraves at 883-4422, Ext. 241, or elizabeth.seagraves@news-record.com

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

promisehola

August 17, 2009 - 11:09 pm EDT

I can't believe that people are trying to control how many people are in a house. This is just another thing for the government to try to control.

justis4all

August 18, 2009 - 7:32 am EDT

If you really "read" the article, they are not trying to limit the number of "people" living in the house, they are limiting the number of "vehicles' parked on the yards of the houses. Now, if you have 2-3 families living together then maybe they should "car pool" to cut down on the vehicles.

Alacam

August 18, 2009 - 7:37 am EDT

With a growing population and increased activities, comes the need for more regulations to better maintain an orderly society. The council, on this issue, stepped up to both the hidden and exposed needs of our city. The future is protected as well as th present!

bigwill

August 18, 2009 - 8:34 am EDT

How can you mandate an ordinance that crosses the boundaries of people's rights. These people own their cars and land which they also pay property taxes on too. I can understand if the vehicle is junk and doesn't work, but if a person wants to park their car on "HIS/HER" property then they should have all the right in the world to do so.

promisehola

August 18, 2009 - 8:45 am EDT

thanks bigwill!!!! kudos for you

Norm*

August 18, 2009 - 10:13 am EDT

dead cars in the yard is often a sign of poverty. Owners may still have payments AND not enough money to repair the cars. It remains cheaper to buy another junker and drive that then repair the other. They can't junk it because someone else owns it. A solution to the problem for too many cars/dead cars in a yard is money, which most likely means jobs. While I understand that hiding one's poverty gives the illusion of wealth, this is not a solution for the real problem. What it ends up being is punishment for people with little money instead of a helping hand. I think the High Point police and or codes enforcement have better things to do that are constructive. This is an example of very small thinking on part of government officials elected and otherwise. (itty bitty, teeny weenie thinking)

Pro-Protection

August 18, 2009 - 10:17 am EDT

I agree with Bigwill! Every turn we take we have yet another thing that government says we cannot do. It has gotten way out of control and needs to stop. I pay for my home and I pay my extremly high taxes. I also pay to put tags on my vehicles and I pay annual property taxes on them. I would think that law enforcement officers could find better things to do than answer calls for a car parked in the front yard. How about traffic enforcement? Make it safer for me to drive to the mall. If they are too busy to ticket bad drivers, they have to be too busy for this city ordinance. I could go on and on with common sense suggestions but it falls on the deaf ears in government. Thanks for letting me blow off some steam.
Protect your rights!

EA Seagraves

August 18, 2009 - 10:43 am EDT

Pro-Protection:

The city's inspectors (enforcement officers), not police officers, will respond to complaints.

Kesh

August 18, 2009 - 10:28 am EDT

Go bigwill Go! I agree with you.... If I recall correctly Greensboro has already passed this same mess.....

bonnie0440

August 18, 2009 - 10:41 am EDT

Thank you for protecting our communities from those who have no home owner or neighborhood pride.

Pro-Protection

August 18, 2009 - 11:11 am EDT

Thanks EA Seagraves for the correction.
Bonnie0440----- This ordinance is for parking, not junk vehicles. They are not protecting your property value with this.You may be thinking that anyone that has parked a vehicle in the yard dose not care about taking care of their property. Simply not the case. A small family of four (Two teenagers) can have four vehicles and should not be forced to pave or gravel a driveway for them. They may not have the room or the required % of space to allow that. There is just to many different scenarios for this ordinance to be fair to everyone. I know many share your opinion so dont take this personaly. The intent of this ordinance is a good one but it invades property owners rights. Not that it matters, they already passed it.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search