Willard council asks staff to rewrite RV-park rules amid debate over length of stay

Willard 'The Willard City Council and planning commission spent a January work session debating how to update city rules that govern campgrounds and RV facilities, focusing on whether the Willard Peak Campground is a short-term campground or a longer-term RV/trailer park and how long guests should be allowed to remain.

The council did not take a formal vote on code changes but asked planning staff to draft revised ordinance language and to clean up the campground's conditional-use permit so it no longer references outdated code. Staff said the CUP currently gives the campground 18 months to come into conformance with Willard City ordinance 12 5 0 4 paragraph 1 and recommended rewriting both the ordinance and the CUP conditions to reference the operator's rules and clear, enforceable standards.

Why it matters: The discussion balances two city priorities. One is protecting limited commercial land and encouraging uses that generate wider tax revenue and economic development; the other is supporting campgrounds that help Willard Bay capture seasonal tourism. Council members said the existing 90-day limit is outdated for some modern campground business models but also warned that permitting long-term stays without enforcement could allow sites to decline.

Owner's request and operator practices: The owner of the site, who identified himself in the session as Brenton, told the council the business needs regulatory clarity. "I want to make more money," he said in explaining why longer-term stays can make the operation sustainable; he urged objective maintenance and appearance standards rather than counting days as the only metric. A campground manager who identified herself as working for Liberty Campground told council members the park's contract already requires moving guests every 90 days and includes background checks for longer stays. "We will always be moving people every 90 days," she said, and offered the facility's contract as a model the city could reference.

Options on the table: Council members discussed several options: keep the 90-day cap; extend the maximum stay to one year; permit 18-month stays; or remove a fixed cap but require rotation rules and stronger enforcement. Several members proposed a one-year limit with an extension mechanism for documented circumstances (for example, domestic-violence victims, residents finishing a home build or temporary hardship). Others favored no set cap on the theory that strong contract enforcement and owner management would prevent the site from becoming a de facto mobile-home park.

Enforcement and exceptions: Legal staff and city members suggested enforcement tools including logs and periodic CUP reviews, an application fee for extension requests, a tiered penalty system based on calls for service (a model used by Brigham City), and explicit prohibitions on permanent structures. Members emphasized the city needs objective thresholds (tiered call-for-service triggers, clear maintenance standards) to make enforcement administrable and defensible.

Tax and land-use considerations: Several council members noted that long-term RV sites generate limited property tax compared with other commercial uses while still creating demands on police, fire and public utilities. The point returned repeatedly: if the city allows long-term occupancy on commercial parcels, it should do so with rules that protect neighborhood quality and avoid using prime commercial land for low-tax uses inadvertently.

Next steps: Staff was asked to draft ordinance revisions and a cleaned-up CUP reflecting the council's direction (language on seasonality, extension criteria, enforcement teeth and a prohibition on moving to another spot on the same property to circumvent time limits). The draft will be routed through the planning commission for review before the council considers any formal change.

Procedural note: The meeting concluded with a voice motion to adjourn, which the body approved.