A California winery proprietor is suing Santa Clara County after officers fined him for permitting his longtime worker to stay in an RV on his property for years.
Michael Ballard, whose household owns Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards in a city south of San Francisco, alleges he was fined a complete of greater than $120,000 after the county stated he violated native zoning legal guidelines that ban anybody from residing in an RV on public or personal property, in line with the The Mercury Information.
Marcelino Martinez, supervisor of the winery, which is round 2.6 million sq. ft (243,000 sq. meters), stated his household misplaced their lease on a trailer they have been residing in years in the past and had restricted choices for inexpensive housing within the space. The Ballard household agreed to permit them to stay in an RV on the vineyards. Martinez, his spouse and kids have lived there without spending a dime since, 2013, in line with The Mercury Information.
“I couldn’t make a family homeless for arbitrary reasons,” Ballard advised the newspaper. “The human impact exceeded any damage or nuisance that their continued living in the trailer was going to create.”
However in July 2019, the county started fining the Ballards $1,000 day by day for the RV, then lowered the penalty to $250 a day, the winery proprietor stated.
The county disputed that it fined Ballard $120,000 and stated he refused to comply with deadlines to scale back the violations, in line with the newspaper. Officers have made a number of provides to drastically lower fines if he removes the RV, they stated.
The county was imposing “excessive fines” and violating the U.S. Structure with its actions in opposition to Ballard, his lawyer Paul Avelar advised The Mercury Information.
Ballard doesn’t agree with the county spending a lot time penalizing him when it’s dealing with higher points.
“Just drive anywhere in the county, there are mobile homes parked all over the place. There are encampments everywhere you go,” he advised the newspaper. “The problem is obvious and overt, yet they’re choosing to prosecute us in probably the least intrusive example of this, where we are letting someone live on private property in a private location and we’re not bothering anyone.”
