Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Mobile Home Rv topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meadow council debates clarifying RV/mobile-home ordinance, seeks attorney review
Summary
Council members reviewed ordinance 10-11-1, which limits occupancy of mobile homes and recreational vehicles to two weeks, and discussed adding clearer time limits, waste-handling requirements and an enforcement process; staff will send proposed changes to the town attorney for review.
Speaker 2 (Unidentified) read the town’s existing ordinance restricting occupancy of mobile homes and recreational vehicles, saying: “no person, persons, firm, corporation or partnership shall move into or erect on any lot or property within the limits of the town any mobile home or recreational vehicle and occupy said mobile home or recreational vehicle for a period exceeding 2 weeks” and that the language dates from 2017.
Council members said the rule is unclear about repeat stays and enforcement. Speaker 2 suggested clarifying the rule with a measurable limit — for example, "up to 14 days in a 6 month period or in a 12 month period," to avoid repeated short absences allowing de facto long-term occupancy. Speaker 3 urged the council to include enforcement steps and asked that the town attorney review proposed language to determine whether the town can enforce penalties or must rely on county law enforcement.
Speakers raised public-health and sanitation concerns tied to long-term occupancy on vacant lots. Speaker 4 warned about potential waste-handling problems if an RV is occupied on an empty parcel, saying: "If it's an empty lot and there's RV on it and someone's living there, and you don't know where the waste is going, that's a good one." The council discussed options short of immediate penalties — written notice to property owners, follow-up visits, and referral to the county sheriff if the problem continues.
Speaker 5 and others recommended forwarding the draft clarifications and enforcement options to the town attorney rather than adopting immediate changes, noting the town’s limited enforcement capacity and budget constraints. No formal amendment or vote was taken during the meeting; council members asked staff to return with attorney guidance and a clearer proposed ordinance for consideration at a future meeting.
Next steps: staff will submit the council’s suggested clarifications and enforcement scenarios to the town attorney for legal review and report back to council members at a future meeting.
