On Monday Jan. 8, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended lightening up some aspects of a proposed RV ordinance that contains some pretty heavy regulatory language. RVs and travel trailers descend on the entire state of Florida during the winter months, so placing strong limitations on them may not be in the best interest of the county branded the “Adventure Coast” from a tourism perspective. The suggestions made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, reduce the proposed regulations, but leave much to be desired by public commenters whom will undoubtedly bring their concerns to county commissioners. It is important to note that the ordinance does not pertain to mobile home or RV parks specifically designated for such usage.
The proposed ordinance began the meeting with a 30 day limit to stays on vacant property zoned for mobile home usage which is a big change from the current regulation limiting stays to 6 months. By the end of the meeting, P and Z commissioners agreed that 4 months would be sufficient for stays on vacant property with mobile home use allowed, about how long snow birds typically stay.
Public Commenter Vicky Keaton was pretty convincing on this matter. She addressed the Planning and Zoning Commission in tears, “You can’t limit me to this kind of time because I can’t get it done.”
She explained that she is from Ohio where she owns a home. She purchased a property in hopes of becoming a snowbird 3 to 4 months out of the year. She has had several setbacks and needs more time to get her property ready for her travel trailer. It’s too expensive to stay in a trailer park because they want between $400 and $500 per month and hotels are also too expensive. The ordinance would pretty much destroy her prospects of using the property she purchased as a place to stay in her travel trailer.
“When I found out you were going to take it down from six months to 30 days, my dream just went up in smoke,” she said.
While another change may provide a convenient excuse for guests that may overstay their welcome, public commenters see it as a violation of private property rights and unenforceable.
The proposed code in question (E2) relating to non-resident visitors utilizing a recreational vehicle read prior to P and Z recommended changes:
“Nonresident: When a recreational vehicle is used as transportation of visitors to this county to visit friends or relatives who are residing in this county, the recreational vehicle may be used on the premises of the visited family for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) days for residentially zoned properties and no more than thirty (30) days for agricultural, agricultural/residential or PDP(RUR) zoned properties. The visiting party must secure a permit giving their name, and location and written property owner consent with the Administrative Official within two (2) working days of arrival. Visiting party permits are limited to one per calendar year per property.” By the end of the P and Z meeting, Commissioners agreed to strike the last line, which limited “visiting party permits” to one per calendar year per property.
Public commenter Karlene Norgren wasn’t having any of it in regards to regulating her visitors. She said that she’d let her visitors stay as long as they want and the ordinance is most likely unenforceable since it infringes on private property rights.
The proposed ordinance adds language regulating the storage of RVs and travel trailers and also codifies regulations for living in a travel trailer or RV while building a permanent structure.
Part of this regulation limited staying in an RV or travel trailer to one year while building a permanent residence. P & Z commissioners agreed to remove the one year limit here.
Public commenter Pat Miketinac, swayed the P and Z Commission, stating that building a home can take longer than a year especially if it is owner built (without a contractor). Mr. Miketinac explained that he built his home 30 years ago while working part time in order to avoid a mortgage and it took him two and a half years.
“I just want others to have the same opportunity that I had.”
Mr. Miketinac remarked, “The value of a property is determined by its permitted uses, every new unnecessary limitation reduces the value of the property.”
During the December BOCC meeting, commissioners as well as members of the public expressed concern over language in the ordinance that stated the RV or travel trailer needed to be removed after construction of the home. This was removed from the ordinance presented to P and Z commission.
Shirley Miketinac stated that she’d like to see much of the current law repealed, “let alone the proposed amendments you see before you today.” She questioned why this would apply at all to rural and agricultural property. She writes in a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission, “It can be understood that people who live in residential neighborhoods may well be concerned about RVs and travel trailers cluttering their space, lowering property values and blocking their views. If there are major concerns, it would be hoped that they would choose to live in deed-restricted areas, or those with Home Owners Associations to provide those protections. It is far harder to understand why people in rural and agricultural neighborhoods would have a problem with RVs or travel trailers. As a matter of fact, I spoke with Chris Linsbeck at the December 12th BOCC meeting. He confirmed that these regulations really didn’t fit the rural or agricultural areas. No complaints come from these folks. This ordinance, if it stands at all, should be tailored only for residential zonings. Mr. Linsbeck even agreed with me that this ordinance really shouldn’t apply to rural/agricultural areas. That would be a great starting point for a compromise!”
In summary, the changes to the proposed ordinance that P and Z approved to go before the BOCC are as follows:
On vacant property zoned for mobile homes, a stay of 4 months would be allowed in a travel trailer or RV- this is a decrease from the current code limiting to 6 months, but an increase to the proposed limit of 30 days (E1)
Removal of the sentence limiting one visiting permit per property per calendar year was removed (E2)
Removal of the one year limit for staying on a property in an RV or travel trailer while permanent residence is under construction (E5)