By Ashley M. Casey
Staff Writer
The Clay Town Board and a blue-ribbon panel of residents are still hashing out the details of a parking ordinance for trailers, RVs and other heavy vehicles in residential areas. The public hearing on the issue continued at the Sept. 17 town board meeting.
“We heard you loud and clear,” Supervisor Damian Ulatowski said.
Earlier this year, several residents objected to aspects in the proposal such as restrictions on weight rating and the possibility of jail time as a penalty for not obeying the ordinance.
The town posted another draft of the proposed ordinance after the Sept. 5 town board meeting for citizens to review on its website.
“I think we had a pretty good dialogue at the last meeting,” Ulatowski said. “We want to accommodate you RV and trailer owners as much as we possibly can but at the same time respect those that don’t have [them], and I think we came close to a compromise.”
Councilor Ryan Pleskach will revise the proposal once again to address the following concerns:
- Clarification of where a vehicle can be parked in relation to one’s home, yard, driveway or garage and the location of easements on the property
- Definition of “living in” an RV or camper
- Possibility of allowing more than one RV to be parked on a property temporarily
Resident Daniel Tanton questioned language that would require the vehicles to be parked on a hard surface such as concrete, tar or stone.
“If I’ve got two acres of property and I want to put it in the back of my property that’s on the grass, I’ve got to put a hardened piece of property there that attaches to the road. That’s not what we discussed,” Tanton said.
Ulatowski said the issue is still open for discussion.
“It’s not cast in concrete,” he said.
Deputy Supervisor Joseph Bick suggested that homeowners be allowed to park their RVs in their paved, concrete or stone front driveway, but not on the front lawn.
“It kind of defies reason … having people make permeable surfaces all over their property just so they can put their camper there,” Bick said. “We should make it clear that if it’s parked in front of your house, it needs to be in an established driveway. If it’s not parked in front of your house, let people live their lives.”
Residents in attendance applauded after Bick finished his comment.
Councilor David Hess and Councilor Pleskach said they agreed with Bick that the language to which Tanton objected should be removed as it was not what the blue-ribbon commission and town officials had agreed upon.
Councilor Kevin Meaker raised the issue of parking in relation to easements located on the property. Ulatowski said homeowners could drive across an easement to park their vehicles next to or behind their homes, but they should not be able to park on an easement because they could incur damage if the town or utility company needs to access that easement in an emergency.
Resident Ron Pennock asked what would be considered the front yard for a corner lot.
“We’ll have to make some corner lot exceptions,” Ulatowski said.
Another provision of the proposed law is that no RV or camper should be used as living quarters.
“I have friends that come up in their RV and park in my driveway. They’re vacationing, they’re not living in my house,” said resident Kathleen Mancini. “So what do you define as ‘living in’ these trailers?”
“I say someone that’s cooking there, eating there, bathrooming there, that’s living,” Ulatowski said.
Tanton said he has relatives who visit in their RVs as well. He suggested the definition hinge on where a person receives their mail. Bick said the town could consider basing the definition on state campgrounds’ policies, which permit camping for no more than 10 days.
Mancini said she also has a camper. Ulatowski noted that when she has visitors, she could be in violation of the proposed ordinance because there would be two RVs parked on her property.
“There’s no way that we can make a law that will regulate all of these things, give everybody what they want out of all these things, make it so that you can with a clear conscience follow all the rules all the time. I don’t think we can legislate that,” Bick said. “I think we have to use common sense and good judgment and be willing at some point to accept some degree of [risk].”
Bick said residents have to keep in mind that they could be fined if they are cited for not following the ordinance, but they might be able to convince a judge that a visiting relative does not mean the relative is living there.
“The downside of not complying with this is not enough to keep you from living your life,” he said.
The public hearing has been adjourned to the Oct. 1 town board meeting.
