Neighbor says RV parked on lava-rock pad violates North Platte RV ordinance; council agrees to send issue to planning commission

A North Platte resident told the City Council on Tuesday that a neighboring 42-foot recreational vehicle parked on a lava-rock driveway pad is blocking light to her bedroom windows and harming her property’s value.

The complaint came from Donna Tai of 2320 Cedarberry Road, who said the RV with slides “is within 6 foot of our bedroom windows,” overshadows the home and “blocks the light and the view from our bedroom windows.”

City planning staff explained the RV rules in ordinance No. 4153, passed Nov. 7, 2023, were intended to reduce RV parking in streets by allowing on‑site parking on “existing or a paved driveway” and limited front‑yard placement. Planner Judy (city staff) said the ordinance requires an existing or paved driveway, a minimum 10‑foot setback from the sidewalk, and that a pad must be a true hard surface. She told the council the lava rock tracks likely do not meet the code’s hard‑surface test: “The lava rock probably would be considered a hard surface as long as it was completely and totally solid…The two tracks definitely do not meet code.”

Judy also said the property owner had a second, permitted curb cut and that the pad in question is not adjacent to the property’s existing driveway, which is another basis for noncompliance: “The violation is it’s not a hard surface as it exists today, and it’s not adjacent to their existing driveway.”

Councilmembers discussed enforcement options and unintended consequences. Councilmember Ty and others stressed that the city’s objective when adopting the ordinance was to get RVs off the street and that many residents invested to comply with the existing rules. Ty said that while the current case appears nonconforming, “we did set some rules that people made investments in.” Councilmember Rod noted curb cuts can be allowed for legitimate secondary access (for example, to a rear garage) and asked why a second curb cut had been permitted when the pad would not meet the ordinance’s adjacency requirement; staff said the curb cut itself can be permitted while the pad placement could still violate the RV parking language.

After discussion the council agreed further clarification was needed. Staff suggested adding the word “existing” to the phrase describing an adjacent driveway pad to reduce future confusion; Judy said that would “probably make it more clear for the person doing it and especially, like, in this situation.” The council concluded the matter should go to the Planning Commission for possible ordinance amendments. Mayor and staff said the current ordinance can be enforced as written if a condition remains unchanged.

The council did not change the ordinance at Tuesday’s meeting. A motion to send the matter to the Planning Commission and return with recommendations was carried; the council will consider proposed language addressing adjacency, hard‑surface definition and side/front yard interpretations.

Residents and councilmembers suggested additional long‑term work: examining vehicle size limits and whether large RVs should be treated differently, updating curb‑cut rules for corner lots, and confirming enforcement responsibilities between planning/zoning and police. Staff promised to return with clarified language and implementation options.

The citizen who raised the complaint said she would provide photographs to staff for use in the review process.