Planning commission agrees to draft ordinance defining RV courts, motels and short-term cabins

Cleveland Planning and Zoning Commission members at their Sept. 3 meeting agreed to prepare a new ordinance to define and regulate recreational vehicle (RV) courts, motels, cabins and related short-term lodging and to bring a skeletal draft and specific recommendations to the commission at the October meeting.

The commission said the town—s current commercial-zone language is vague and does not specify minimum lot sizes, unit density, road and setback standards, management requirements or how tents and temporary stays should be handled. Commissioners reviewed sample ordinances from Orangeville, Green River, Huntington, Elmo and Ferron and discussed which provisions to adopt or adapt.

Why it matters: commissioners said a clearer local ordinance would give residents, property owners and prospective business operators predictable rules for where short-term lodging can locate, what approvals are required and basic safety and sanitation expectations. The item also affects whether applicants must seek rezoning or a conditional-use permit and therefore requires subsequent council review.

Most important specifics discussed

- Zoning and lot size: Commissioners agreed that RV courts and similar uses should be located in commercial zones; most sample ordinances and the state definition cited in the meeting indicate a minimum one-acre parcel for a commercial RV court. The commission asked that a similar minimum be included in the town—s draft.

- Unit density: Members noted Ferron—s limit of no greater than 15 units per acre as an example to consider when setting a density cap.

- Temporary stay limit: Commissioners discussed limiting stays to a maximum (the working suggestion during the meeting was 30 days) for short-term recreational or tourist accommodations.

- Types of permitted accommodations: The commission discussed explicit language to cover recreational vehicles, camping tents, motels/hotels and small cabin units so the ordinance cannot be read as only applying to RVs. Orangeville and Ferron were cited as models that explicitly include tents or cabins; commissioners favored language that captures all those uses or defines each use type.

- Roads, access and setbacks: Most sample ordinances include requirements for road width/clearance for emergency response, limits on entrance locations (for example, minimum distance from intersections) and setback standards (some examples used 10-foot setbacks, others 20). Commissioners said the town should adopt clear standards for interior roads and site access.

- Management and oversight provisions: Commissioners noted language in Ferron requiring an on-site manager or owner-agent available 24/7 and able to respond to complaints within 60 minutes; some members said that level of operational control may be appropriate to include, while others warned against prescribing how a private operator runs the business.

- Permitting: The commission noted the town—s current code mentions that recreational vehicle courts are a characteristic use in commercial zones and requires a business license and conditional-use review; members said the new ordinance should spell out the documentation applicants must provide (site plans, utilities, driveway/exhibit information, signage, sanitation and septic/pool standards where applicable).

Next steps and direction given

The commission agreed to use Orangeville—s ordinance as a baseline because members found it concise and easy to adapt. Commissioners asked colleagues to review the sample ordinances and return to the October meeting with a list of specific additions or changes they recommend; one member offered to prepare a skeletal draft beforehand to accelerate the process. Commissioners said they will consult the county attorney or other legal counsel as the draft is finalized before sending it to the town council for formal consideration and any rezoning that may be required.

Actions at the meeting

- The commission approved the August meeting minutes by motion. - Members voted to move an agenda item (an individual applicant inquiry) down the agenda to allow for possible later attendance. - Commissioners decided not to table the absent applicant—s request indefinitely; the item will be revisited if the applicant returns or submits more information.

Meeting context and background

Commissioners said the town—s existing zoning language provides only a brief mention of recreational vehicle courts in the commercial zone and lacks operational, safety and dimensional detail. Members cited state definitions and the Utah Administrative Code (including sanitation and public-pool standards) as reference material some sample ordinances incorporated. The commission also reviewed several other small-town ordinances to find model language suitable for Cleveland—s scale and resources.

Ending

The group set a work assignment for the October meeting: members will bring targeted edits and a short list of provisions to add or remove; the commission—s skeletal draft will then be refined and, after legal review, forwarded to the council for formal action and any required rezoning or conditional-use review.