Joseph Siliano, a resident, told the council July 28 that a proposed RV-resort project being discussed publicly would require a zoning change before it could move forward and that any such change would be subject to the town's formal process.

Siliano said the developer is seeking recreational use approval — not commercial zoning — and compared recreational businesses in the town's AGRES district (examples he cited: horse barns, nurseries, fruit stands, agritourism). He said the project as proposed would preserve more than 60% green space, include about 8 acres of conservation area, walking, biking and horse trails that the developer has proposed to donate to the town, and would connect to city water and sewer to relieve pressure on the aquifer. He said the developer is offering $500,000 up front plus $25,000 annually in surplus revenue beyond standard business tax receipts, and that the site plan is available on the town website.

Siliano argued the project could act as a roughly 47-acre buffer between Southern Boulevard commercial zoning and nearby residents and said outright rejection of reasonable proposals could leave the town exposed to a private lawsuit and possible forced commercial development. He urged council members to read the site plan and keep discussion civil.

Why it matters: zoning-designation decisions determine what uses are permitted on a parcel and how land-use conflicts are managed. Siliano's comments pointed to direct trade-offs residents and council must weigh: conservation and infrastructure commitments versus concerns about long-term land-use change and commercial encroachment.

Siliano also addressed market impacts on small private RV rentals, estimating that an average private RV rental to a homeowner of about $2,000 per month would equate to roughly six days at the proposed resort, and said concerns about the “Live Oakville Act” applying were misplaced because, in his view, it does not apply to recreational land (quote as presented by speaker). He invited anyone to provide concrete evidence to refute his claims and said he would publicly recant any incorrect statements.

Ending: Siliano closed by urging civility in council debate and asking council and residents to review the developer's materials on the town website before making decisions.