Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press code enforcement over shipping container and RV pad rules
Summary
Two residents spoke during public comment about enforcement of portable storage and RV parking rules. One said a 40-foot shipping container used for long-term storage was cited under the portable storage ordinance; another said he built an RV pad to city specifications but now faces a requirement to move the vehicle to the backyard.
Two residents told the Bartlett Board of Mayor and Aldermen on Jan. 29 they are contesting or seeking clarity about how the city enforces rules for portable storage containers and RV parking.
Joe Mixon, a resident at 2602 Elmore Park, said he placed a 40-foot shipping container on his property for permanent storage and was cited by code enforcement under the city's portable storage-unit provision (he referenced "section 7, portable storage units"). Mixon told council members he had previously spoken with planning and code staff and understood the container would be allowed; he said the citation that followed led him to seek clarification from the board. "I don't consider this to be a portable storage unit. It sits there for permanent storage," Mixon said during public comment.
Trey Arthur, the city's director of code enforcement, explained that the city interprets the ordinance to make many such containers nonconforming when used outside enclosed structures and that preexisting nonconformities cannot be expanded. Arthur said there are ordinance provisions that allow vehicles and trailers to be stored inside a barn but not outside when that increases a lot's nonconformity. Arthur offered to meet with residents to discuss possible exceptions or clarifications and suggested staff could review whether language should be amended for large "estate" lots.
Larry Connor, who said he built an RV pad to code after being told a pad was required in 2018, said he now understands the updated ordinance would require his RV to be moved to the backyard. Connor asked why rules applied after he followed city instructions; staff offered to meet with him and review the permit history.
Staff directed both residents to set up meetings with code-enforcement staff for case-specific review; the clerk or staff member provided a phone number (385-4444) and an offer to discuss the issues in person.
No formal board action was taken at the meeting on these individual citations; the matter was recorded as public comment and staff follow-up.
Ending: Staff offered individualized meetings to review permits and enforcement history and to consider potential ordinance clarifications; any code changes would require council action at a future meeting.
