Mayfield council hears broad resident concerns as town reviews 1998 ordinances on trailers, animals and yard storage

Mayfield — Dozens of residents turned out April 9 as the Mayfield Town Council opened a public review of long-standing town ordinances covering recreational vehicles and trailers, large animals, dogs and yard storage. The meeting centered on questions about grandfathered uses, public-health safeguards and how strictly the town should enforce rules written in or around 1998.

“Do we want the town to become a trailer park, or do we want to be a town with homes,” the mayor asked as the council solicited public feedback on whether trailer-related provisions remain appropriate. The mayor described two existing conditional-use paths in the ordinance: temporary placement for a year while building a house, and limited recreational use with requirements for self-contained units and setbacks.

Residents described a range of circumstances. One resident said a camper parked near his property “is put there in case somebody needs to stay there because my husband’s health” and is not used year-round; others drew distinctions between camping trailers and utility or car hauler trailers and asked the council to clarify which types of trailers the rules are meant to cover.

Public-work staff and residents also raised water and sewer safety concerns tied to occupied trailers. Staff warned that improper hose hookups and absent backflow prevention can create cross-connection and back-siphon risk to the town system; the meeting noted state rules requiring approved backflow devices and annual testing.

The council moved from trailers to animal rules. Staff outlined how the ordinance reads for large animals: a 29,000-square-foot base requirement for a first large animal plus additional setbacks tied to house footprint, which — combined with the minimum lot size and house area — can effectively require roughly 39,000 square feet (about three-quarters of an acre) to keep one horse under the current text. Residents compared that standard to neighboring towns’ rules (Centerfield, Gunnison) and emphasized that the frequently stated problem is not animals themselves but owners’ maintenance — manure, flies and persistent odors.

“I don’t think it’s the animal that’s the problem; it’s the owner not taking care of them,” one resident said. Council members said the town will consider whether to shrink lot-size thresholds, adopt clearer definitions between corrals and pastures, and establish enforceable standards for manure management and setbacks that balance rural character with nuisance protections.

On yard storage and inoperable vehicles, the mayor read the ordinance language prohibiting storage, dismantling or abandonment of junk, debris and inoperable motor vehicles at levels that constitute a junkyard. Several attendees asked for measured enforcement and exemptions for personal hardship; others asked for consistent townwide application so enforcement does not feel selective.

Council next steps: staff said they will assemble comparative ordinance language from nearby towns, consult the State Land Ombudsman’s office for fairness and statutory constraints, and bring focused public hearings on individual items (trailers, animals, dogs, yard-storage) rather than a single omnibus rewrite. Council encouraged residents to review the posted ordinances and return with specific proposals or testimony at the upcoming hearings.

The meeting closed the ordinance discussion after the council agreed to work through the topics sequentially, gather technical information on setbacks and backflow prevention, and prepare draft language for future public hearings.