Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of proposed code change to allow driveway parking of large boats and recreational vehicles
Summary
After a lengthy debate over enforcement, visual clutter and neighborhood impacts, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a Land Development Code amendment that would have allowed limited driveway parking of large recreational watercraft and recreational land vehicles.
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a proposed Land Development Code amendment that would have permitted limited driveway parking of large recreational watercraft (boats) and clarified rules for recreational land vehicles.
Rebecca Beau, planning staff, presented the draft changes as a way to allow one large recreational watercraft to be parked on a legally permitted driveway, provided it remained 5 feet from the property line, did not overhang the right-of-way, was operable, and did not displace domestic vehicles to the street. She said the amendment would create separate definitions for "recreational land vehicle" and "recreational watercraft," and allow a single large watercraft per property under conditions.
Commissioners and residents raised enforcement and neighborhood-quality concerns. One commissioner noted that many properties already have boats and trailers parked illegally and asked how code compliance would be improved; another said that allowing driveway parking could “proliferate” visual clutter in neighborhoods already affected by poorly maintained vessels and trailers. A resident and several commissioners urged stricter maintenance standards and clearer operability definitions.
Some board members said they supported allowing boats on larger lots or where appropriate, but worried the proposed language would encourage more visible clutter on smaller suburban lots and that the county’s current code-enforcement capacity is insufficient to police it.
After discussion, a motion to recommend denial was made and seconded; the motion carried.
Next steps: the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny will be included in the record sent to the Board of County Commissioners, which will take final action on any LDC amendment.

