Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreational Vehicle Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orangeville considers 30‑day rolling contracts, year‑long recordkeeping for RV parks to curb de facto residency
Summary
Council discussed an ordinance amendment to require RV park owners to use 30‑day rolling contracts with owners required to retain those contracts for one year to aid enforcement and to limit occupants from establishing residency; members debated whether to adopt a calendar‑year maximum stay and discussed enforcement through nuisance codes.
During the May 14 meeting, council members reviewed proposed changes to the city's rules for recreational vehicle (RV) parks. The proposal would treat RV parks as a series of short‑term stays by requiring owners to have every occupant sign a 30‑day contract that would renew as needed and to retain those contracts for one year to allow city review if problems arise.
A council speaker explained the policy rationale: because short‑term stays of 30 days or less can prevent occupants from establishing residency and falling under tenant protections, using rolling 30‑day contracts gives park owners clearer authority to remove occupants who break city code. "The owners of RV parks need to have every customer sign a 30 day contract," the speaker said.
Members discussed whether the ordinance should also include a maximum number of days per calendar year (examples discussed included 120 or 180 days) to prevent effectively permanent occupancy in RV parks; some members raised concerns that imposing a tight maximum might push workers to other nearby jurisdictions and reduce local revenue.
Council members also noted that enforcement currently relies on standard nuisance codes (noise, quiet hours, abandoned trailers) and on owners' responsibilities; speakers discussed towing or other owner actions for abandoned units and the potential for citation escalation if owners did not address violations.
The transcript shows discussion and differing viewpoints but records no formal vote adopting a maximum‑stay limit or other amendment; the RV‑park wording was discussed as part of the ordinance drafting process.
