The Clayton Planning Commission spent significant time debating whether to permit temporary RV occupancy on residential lots as an exception to the town’s Unified Development Ordinance. Under the current UDO language discussed at the meeting, one recreational vehicle may be stored on a residential property; an additional visiting RV may stay up to seven days at a time and no more than 14 days per year, and RVs may not be occupied for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes except as the visitation rule allows.

Commission staff, citing research into other towns’ regulations and fire-safety guidance, said a key reason many municipalities prohibit permanent RV occupancy is that RVs do not meet the same fire-protection construction standards as residences. "The only thing I could find was that an RV does not have the same, fire protection construction guidelines in building that a residence has," a planning staff member said, referencing NFPA standards.

Commissioners discussed carve-outs for extreme, temporary needs — for example, when a household needs immediate, short-term accommodations while an accessory dwelling unit (often called an “in-law quarters”) is built or repaired. Proposed elements discussed included: a formal variance application to the Board of Zoning Appeals, a monthly permit fee (suggested ranges during discussion were roughly $100 to $200 per month), a requirement that the first year’s fee be paid in full if the permit is granted, and indemnity language absolving the town of liability for risks associated with occupying an RV.

A planning-commission member who said family circumstances had led to placing a fully hooked-up RV on their lot urged the commission to allow exceptions with safeguards. "I have that situation going on in my house ... it's my intention that as soon as that's not needed, it will be gone," the member said. Other commissioners raised concerns that high fees could make exceptions unaffordable for some residents, and that allowing occupancy could create long-term de facto housing rather than temporary relief.

Commissioners emphasized that any allowance should be explicitly temporary and contingent on clear conditions: an approved variance, an understanding of known risks by the occupant, monthly fee payments, and demonstrable plans to transition to an accessory dwelling or other permanent housing as soon as feasible. The commission directed staff to draft language for the UDO that would permit limited variances with those safeguards and to bring the draft back for further discussion and a future public hearing.