Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Travel Trailer Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning panel reviews enforcement, appeals and continuing‑obligation language for travel‑trailer and RV courts
Summary
The Cleveland Planning and Zoning Committee reviewed draft ordinance language for travel trailer and recreational vehicle courts, focusing on enforcement mechanisms (daily fines, nuisance abatement), continuing obligations for owners/successors, revocation after repeated violations, and whether to cross‑reference the town’s subdivision and appeals code. Staff were asked to research failure‑to‑begin‑development language and in‑town septic/sewer rules.
CLEVELAND — On Dec. 3, 2025, the Cleveland Planning and Zoning Committee spent the work‑meeting portion of its agenda comparing sample ordinance language for travel trailer and recreational vehicle (RV) courts and discussing how enforcement, appeals and continuing obligations should be handled in the town code.
Nancy Livingston read and compared provisions from neighboring towns (identified in the meeting transcript as “Orangeville” and others), highlighting sample enforcement language that would allow daily fines and nuisance abatement. Livingston noted a model provision that makes continued failure to comply a separate infraction each day and described a sample revocation trigger: “In the event of 3 or more violations of this section committed at the same recreational vehicle court within a 12 month period, the city council may … proceed with revocation of the business license,” which would effectively require removal or closure of the court.
Committee members discussed whether to place enforcement and continuing‑obligation text directly in the RV court section or to reference existing subdivision and enforcement chapters. Several members recommended cross‑referencing Cleveland’s existing land‑use enforcement and appeal procedures (the group cited the town’s subdivision chapter and Cleveland chapter 2 as places to draw or link to detailed procedures) to avoid duplicating long appeal processes in the RV section.
The panel also discussed wording to ensure responsibility survives ownership changes: proposals would hold owners, operators and successors liable for continued maintenance and compliance, and allow the town to abate nuisances and charge owners for remediation and reasonable attorney’s fees (the draft language the committee reviewed referenced “chapter 2 of title 10, Utah code annotated, as amended,” for abatement authority).
Members flagged a recent town fee schedule and a sample $50‑per‑day fine in subdivision enforcement language as a model for penalties to deter ongoing violations. They also examined sample provisions that set timeframes to require a developer to begin active construction so projects do not remain dormant indefinitely.
No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Instead, the committee agreed on next steps: staff and members will compare the sample sections and return with proposed local language. Specifically, the committee assigned review of failure‑to‑begin‑development and expiration of final approval rules (drawing on Orangeville/Orange Hills examples) and asked staff to research whether town code allows new in‑town septic connections rather than a required connection to the town sewer.
The committee will resume this work at its next regular meeting, after members draft recommended text and locate the appropriate cross‑references to the town’s subdivision, enforcement and appeal chapters.
