Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Rv Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission flags density, screening and infrastructure questions in draft RV-park standards; requests building official input
Summary
Reviewers found numeric inconsistencies and missing definitions in a draft project-specific standard for RV housing (e.g., 15 spaces/acre vs. spacing/setback requirements); commissioners asked staff to invite the building official, clarify screening/buffering definitions and reconsider density and infrastructure-removal rules before bringing it back in December.
The Kingston Municipal Planning Commission reviewed a draft set of project-specific standards for housing that included proposed RV-park rules, and commissioners raised several technical and practical concerns that will require staff refinement.
Members identified wording problems (a likely missing verb in a renewal section) and a substantive numeric conflict: the draft sets a density cap of no more than 15 RV spaces per acre while also requiring 20-foot separations, 50-foot setbacks from public roadways and 25-foot side setbacks — measurements commissioners said make the stated density infeasible on a two-acre minimum parcel. Commissioner Jim Owens suggested a practical cap closer to eight spaces per acre given the spacing and setback requirements.
Commissioners also asked the draft to specify what buffering or screening means in practice (vegetative screening, privacy fencing or engineered berms) rather than requiring undefined 'buffering and screening.' They recommended inviting the building official to the December discussion to review construction- and site-safety implications.
On infrastructure removal, members debated whether underground utilities installed for a temporary RV use should be required to be removed at the end of the permit period; the commission generally favored focusing mandatory removal on above-ground, visually intrusive improvements and retaining discretion for permitting and post-use conditions.
What’s next: staff will correct typos, resolve the density/spacing mismatch, define acceptable buffering/screening, and bring the revised draft with input from the building official back to the December meeting.
