Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Harbor weighs limits on RVs, boats and trailers amid safety and equity concerns
Summary
Oak Harbor police and planning staff presented a draft ordinance to restrict long-term on-street parking of oversized vehicles, proposing a 12-hour default limit and two permitting options (a residential long-term permit or a needs-based 5-day/no-permit + limited two-week special permits). Council expressed safety concerns about sightlines, debated fairness and storage availability, and asked staff to draft ordinance language reflecting council feedback.
At the May 26 workshop, Chief of Police Tony Slick and Community Development Director Stacy Pratcher presented proposed amendments to Oak Harbor Municipal Code regarding parking restrictions for vessels, trailers, recreational vehicles and oversized loads.
Staff framed the item as a public-safety issue: large non-passenger vehicles parked on-right-of-way can block sightlines at driveways, intersections and crosswalks and create hazardous conditions for drivers and pedestrians. Staff referenced state guidance in the packet (RCW cited in staff materials) and said the city must weigh whether right-of-way should facilitate transportation or permit long-term private storage.
Two permitting models were compared. The first, a residential long-term storage permit, would allow a resident to register an oversized vehicle (proof of registration and insurance required) and park it long-term in a designated frontage area. The second, a needs-based approach proposed in the current draft ordinance, would retain a 12-hour on-street allowance for legally parked vehicles, allow five days of parking in front of a residence without a permit, and offer special permits for up to two weeks (with staff discretion and a suggested limit of three such special permits per year).
Chief Slick described enforcement mechanics: officers or a patrol contact would document and start a clock at the time of contact; vehicles that are illegally parked or create an immediate traffic hazard could be removed or impounded under existing authority. Council members asked how officers would verify continuous presence (e.g., whether a vehicle has been moved every 12 hours), and staff said enforcement would be complaint-driven and through officer observation.
The council's discussion focused on fairness and practicality. Several members said they wanted to avoid unduly penalizing residents who use trailers or RVs for work; staff acknowledged tool-of-trade protections and said they would craft exemptions or discretionary allowances where appropriate. Council asked about availability of paid storage nearby; staff reported mixed availability with some local facilities offering limited spaces. Staff also outlined potential towing and impound costs and noted that the city sometimes absorbs removal costs when a vehicle is claimed as a residence.
Several council members expressed a preference for the needs-based 5-day model with a two-week special-permit option, while asking staff to draft clearer ordinance language, identify any required permit fees, and prepare public-notice materials for the June 2 public hearing listed in packet materials. No final vote was taken.
"This is really a fundamental policy decision," Chief Slick said, summarizing staff's view: "Should the public right-of-way accommodate transportation or become long-term storage of private property?" The council directed staff to prepare draft ordinance language reflecting the discussed compromise and return with a formal public hearing and vote.
