Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rv Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meadow council debates clarity and enforcement of two‑week RV/mobile‑home rule
Summary
Meadow council discussed ambiguity and enforcement gaps in a town ordinance that limits occupancy of mobile homes and recreational vehicles to two weeks, and members asked the town attorney to review possible amendments including enforcement steps and waste‑management language.
A councilmember read the town ordinance that bars occupancy of mobile homes or recreational vehicles on any lot in town for more than two weeks unless the property is inside a designated RV or mobile‑home park, and the council opened a broad discussion about how the rule is enforced and whether it should be amended.
The discussion centered on why the ordinance’s language — which says an RV “shall not be occupied for a period exceeding 2 weeks” — does not define whether repeated 14‑day stays separated by short absences are permitted, nor does it set enforcement steps or address waste handling on vacant lots. “It will be permissible to occupy a mobile home or recreational vehicle for a period of up to 2 weeks,” a councilmember said while reading the code; another councilmember said the wording is “a little vague.”
Councilmembers suggested possible clarifications, including limiting occupancy to a fixed number of days in a 6‑ or 12‑month period (for example, “up to 14 days in a 6‑month period”) and adding an enforcement sequence — starting with a verbal notification to the property owner, then written notice, then referral to the county sheriff if compliance is not achieved. A councilmember noted waste management as a specific concern for occupants on vacant lots and asked whether septic or cesspool connections are being considered in any amendment.
Councilmembers said they plan to send the ordinance and suggested changes to the town attorney for legal review and to ask whether the town has practical enforcement options. “Maybe that could be something we would consider if we were ever going to amend it,” one member said, referring to a clearer day/period limit and to adding penalties or enforcement steps.
Members also discussed messaging to the public if the attorney advises not to change the ordinance, saying the town should be transparent about enforcement limits and next steps. Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized that the town presently must enforce the existing language as written while any revisions are considered.
The council did not vote on changes at the meeting; members agreed to forward the ordinance and their suggested clarifications to the town attorney and revisit the item at a future meeting.
