Centerville residents oppose tighter rules on boats, campers during public hearing; council tables ordinance

Dozens of residents packed the Centerville Town Council chamber on March 6 to oppose a proposed ordinance that would limit where residents may keep boats, campers and other non-self-propelled vehicles on private property.

The ordinance drew repeated objections during the public hearing from longtime residents who said the rules would impose substantial costs or be impossible to meet given lot topography or existing neighborhood rules. "Does anybody got thousands of dollars to put a fence up?" said Richard Starkey, who identified himself as a fourth- and fifth-generation resident. "This is money they just don't have in their pockets."

Why it matters: Council members and several residents said enforcement is the central problem the town must address before adopting new restrictions. Speakers pressed the council on who would enforce the rule, whether police would be asked to mark tires on street-parked trailers, and how the ordinance would affect older, lower-income and long-term residents who keep recreation vehicles on their properties.

Residents who own boats or campers said many properties do not have room for fenced enclosures and that existing homeowners' association rules already constrain what they can do. "If my yard was flat, which it's not, it would not pass," wrote resident Julie Henry in a statement entered into the record. Another longtime resident, Tim McCluskey, said the area is a boating community with more than 100 boat owners inside town limits and warned the rule would push people to pay for off-site storage.

Council action: After hearing about a dozen public speakers and reading two written statements into the record, the council voted to table the ordinance for 60 days to allow staff and the town attorney to redraft language and consider enforcement, education and financial impacts. Council members said they received many substantive comments that require reflection and clarifications. The council instructed staff to return with revisions within the 60-day window.

What remained unsettled: Citizens repeatedly pointed out that other code violations—overgrown lots, unpermitted signs and derelict buildings—already exist in town and asked why those are not being enforced before introducing new rules. Several speakers warned that a strict fencing or screening requirement would effectively force lower-income residents to sell or pay to store recreation equipment off-site.

The hearing record: The town clerk confirmed the ordinance notice had been published in the Bay Times Record Observer on Feb. 14, 2025. The council did not adopt the ordinance on March 6 and left the hearing closed; the text will be revised and re-noticed if the council directs a new draft.

Ending: Council members said the item will be revisited after staff and the planning commission work through options for narrower, enforceable language and clearer guidance on exemptions and enforcement priorities.