Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rv Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft ordinance limiting RVs and commercial vehicles in residential districts draws strong resident concern
Summary
A proposed zoning ordinance stemming from the master-plan reexamination would allow one RV on a paved driveway if screened; residents urged the council to clarify screening requirements and warned of financial hardship and enforcement confusion.
The council heard extended public comment Monday on a draft ordinance (referred to as draft chapter 580) produced after the planning board’s reexamination of the master plan that would regulate parking and screening of recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles in residential districts.
A planning-board-derived draft read aloud during public comment would permit one motor home, house trailer, RV or travel trailer to be stored on a paved driveway in specified residential zones if the vehicle is owned or leased by a household resident, and requires that each such vehicle “shall be screened with fencing or a dense year‑round landscaping buffer or both,” with screening at least six feet tall at installation. The draft also states that an RV “shall not be used for household occupancy, either temporary or permanent.”
Numerous residents said the screening requirement was impractical and could impose substantial costs. One resident told the council, “Leave the whole thing alone. It's been it's fine.” Several others described the lack of available off‑site storage in the area and warned that enforcing screening standards could force residents to pay substantial sums to store vehicles elsewhere.
Residents raised practical concerns: front‑yard fencing or screening could block access to an RV, side‑yard setbacks make screening infeasible for some lots, and the available commercial‑vehicle and boat storage options in the region are limited or costly. One commenter said he pays about $425 a month to store a work vehicle and had spent “$24,000 the last 2 years” relocating equipment after enforcement; others said they had been cited in the past and asked how many neighbor complaints have been filed.
Council and planning‑board members said the draft originated as a response to a planning-board recommendation in the master‑plan reexamination and stressed the draft is a recommendation for council consideration, not a binding mandate. A council member who also sits on the planning board said he did not believe the planning board intended screening in front of a vehicle that blocks access; rather, he said the intent was to shield a neighboring property line.
Township Attorney (identified in the meeting as Miss Bailey) told the council that the draft ordinance does not itself say removal is required if a property owner cannot provide screening; enforcement would typically proceed through fines or enforcement actions under local code. Planning‑board and council members said revisions and clarifications will be needed before any formal introduction.
The council did not adopt the draft ordinance Monday. Multiple council members said they would hold the matter for more study and suggested revising the draft to clarify screening placement, exemptions where lot geometry prevents screening, and enforcement consequences.
Ending: The council paused action and asked staff and the planning board to clarify the ordinance language and enforcement approach; no vote or ordinance adoption occurred during the meeting.
