This is where I reluctantly chime in and state that I am one of those zoning regulators, but not in this city or state, and I don't know the background story on why this city did such a thing. I also admit that I am only at the whim of the code in most cases, obligated to regurgitate facts I often don't agree with. I try in my position to fix what I can, but that takes time and often political backing.
I can only guess that there are underlying reasons not discussed. Typically trying to regulate vehicles in the front yard (i.e. driveway) is usually 1 of 2 things...either to preserve property values from those persons that have inoperable vehicles, which modern day folks consider junk, or to curb excessive population and occupancy. Unfortunately it is typically targeting immigrant areas where having too many persons reside in a house are creating perceived negative effects on a community. By limiting the cars, you limit how many people can live in the house.
My community only has rules that the vehicle must be operable, and although "operable" means licensed, no flat tires, and no broken glass, we are pretty relaxed if there are no plates on the car. Where my community "gets you" is in a similar requirement that it be parked on hard surface. Many folks just decide to build a bigger driveway. Unfortunately, we limit that amount of your lot that can be covered to 35%, which translates to 65% of your lot must be open and landscape. We do this due to small lots and flooding issues. The community learned the hard way when we allowed someone to install a pool and patio on their backyard, only to have all the water in a rainstorm sheet off to the neighbor's basement. That neighbor was not very happy.
The worst is when I have someone that wants to expand the driveway because the kids are turning 16 and getting cars, and the only solution if they are already at 35% coverage is to find a bigger lot and move.
Please don't shoot me for being the bad guy.
