Cleveland planning commission agrees to draft clearer rules for recreational-vehicle courts, tables ordinance rewrite to next month

The Cleveland Planning and Zoning Commission discussed developing a clearer local ordinance for recreational-vehicle courts and voted to table drafting until the next monthly meeting so members could review example regulations from other Utah towns.

Commission Chair (listed in the transcript as "K.") opened the discussion by saying, "I had Nancy put this on the agenda so that we could discuss specifically the town ordinance dealing with recreational vehicle courts," and noted that Cleveland’s current zoning ordinance mentions RV courts only in a short paragraph in the commercial zoning district. Chair K. said, "If we go down in the use table, it does show that it requires a conditional use, permit, and it does require a business license." The discussion made clear commission members and staff believe the existing ordinance text is brief and lacks operational detail.

Commission members and staff reviewed model language the town planner provided from other Utah towns. Chair K. described findings from a Google search and phone contacts: "As I first started looking into this, I knew Farren City had cabins... we are more than welcome to look at their, their ordinances and stuff and see what they have." Commissioner Tyler added the benefit of proactive rules: "You'd rather get ahead of the game instead of behind the game."

Staff described the town’s "big book" of ordinances as the repository for Cleveland’s existing local laws and said it is publicly available for inspection. During the discussion staff and commissioners referenced statewide guidance, noting that "RV courts typically follow local city or county ordinances" and that some provisions commonly appear in other towns' ordinances and in state guidance.

Commission members discussed specific provisions common to other Utah examples that they may want to adopt or adapt for Cleveland, including: a maximum rental-term limit (discussants cited 30 days as the statewide benchmark), minimum site area (examples cited a one-acre minimum and a maximum density of about 15 sites per acre), a requirement for planning commission review and health-department inspection as prerequisites to business licensing, provision of on-site utilities and drainage, undergrounding of utilities, dedication or conveyance of water rights, a requirement that at least 10% of a project's gross area be set aside for parks/playgrounds, and access requirements that courts front on an arterial or collector road. Commissioners repeatedly said these were sample provisions from other towns and would need to be adapted to Cleveland’s zoning and community objectives.

Chair K. emphasized limits on the commission's authority during this discussion: "As long as everybody remembers this is discussion, then... we can't accept it or deny. The only thing that we can do is let people know what is currently in our ordinance." Commissioners agreed to review the sample ordinances and reconvene the topic at the next meeting. At the close of the item, Nancy moved to table the agenda item to next month; Tyler seconded. Chair K. called for the vote and members answered "Aye," approving the tabling motion.

Votes at a glance - Approve minutes with one typographical correction: Motion by Tyler; second by Logan; outcome: approved unanimously. - Amend agenda to move an agenda item for Annette to the end of the meeting: Motion by Logan; second by Tyler; outcome: approved unanimously. - Table discussion/drafting of a recreational-vehicle-court ordinance to the next meeting: Motion by Nancy; second by Tyler; outcome: approved unanimously. - Adjourn meeting: mover not specified in the transcript; second by Nancy; outcome: approved unanimously.

The commission directed staff to circulate the sample ordinances (the packet included excerpts from Orangeville and one shorter example the staff called the "Farren" example) and to try to locate relevant Utah Code citations for members to review. The commission also asked staff to attempt to obtain Huntington’s ordinance and any other nearby examples for comparison. The item will return on the next meeting agenda for action or for further direction to staff.