Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Recreational Vehicles topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission backs ordinance to clarify that living in recreational vehicles is not permitted in residential zones

3407009 · April 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning and Zoning Commission on April 20, 2025 recommended amending Chapter 22 of the Breckenridge code to explicitly prohibit living in recreational vehicles on residential lots and to codify existing parking limits found in the traffic chapter.

The Breckenridge Planning and Zoning Commission on April 20, 2025 recommended approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the Breckenridge Code of Ordinances to clarify that living in recreational vehicles is not permitted on residential lots.

Planning staff told the commission the city’s traffic ordinance (Chapter 20) already restricts parking of recreational vehicles, boats and inoperative vehicles on driveways, front yards and side yards for periods exceeding 24 hours, but that the zoning code did not explicitly state that living in an RV on a residential lot is prohibited. Staff said the proposed amendment places that prohibition inside the zoning chapter so enforcement aligns with land‑use rules.

A resident asked whether the existing 24-hour parking prohibition applied; staff confirmed the traffic ordinance contains the 24-hour limit for driveways, front yards and side yards, and said the proposed zoning amendment would make clear that backyard parking is not a license to connect utilities and use an RV as a dwelling. Staff also said the zoning code is due for a larger rewrite and that the city will hold public meetings and mailings before broader zoning changes are considered.

Commissioner Lehi moved to recommend the ordinance; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Staff and commissioners noted the ordinance number shown in meeting materials did not match a pending identifier referenced in discussion; staff said the ordinance is pending and will be finalized in packet materials before subsequent readings.