Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Equipment Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes ban on stored heavy construction equipment in single‑family/agricultural yards unless active permit exists
Summary
City staff recommended a text amendment to the UDC to prohibit storage of heavy commercial construction equipment in single‑family and agricultural residential districts except while an active building or land‑disturbance permit is in effect; council suggested clarifying objective enforcement standards.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Equipment Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff presented a proposed text amendment (RZ2504) on April 21 to clarify the Milton Unified Development Code’s rules on parking and storing heavy commercial construction equipment in single‑family and agricultural districts.
Diana Wheeler, interim community development director, told the council that enforcement has been difficult where contractors or builders store heavy construction equipment at private residences when there is no active construction site. Wheeler said the proposed text amendment would prohibit storage of heavy commercial construction equipment on residential parcels unless the property has an active building permit or land‑disturbance permit; she said the measure is not intended to restrict ordinary farm tractors, panel trucks or typical contractor work trucks.
Wheeler presented photographic examples to show the difference between permitted contractor vehicles (panel trucks, smaller equipment) and the heavy equipment the amendment targets (large earth‑moving machines and similar items). She said staff would bring the text amendment back for formal consideration at the May 5 meeting.
Council discussion focused on drafting objective enforcement criteria. Several council members suggested language tied to visibility from the public right‑of‑way, setbacks or parcel size to avoid subjective complaints; the city attorney cautioned that code provisions need to be objectively enforceable. Wheeler and council members also noted the city’s complaint‑driven enforcement model and that many problem cases are visible from the road or occur on smaller lots where equipment cannot be effectively screened.
No vote was taken; staff asked for council direction and said they would revise the draft to reflect the feedback and return with a formal amendment.

