Camas approves a revised and less strict RV ordinance

For the second time in less than four months, the city of Camas has adopted an ordinance governing recreational vehicle and trailer parking, storage and occupancy.

On Monday night, the Camas City Council voted 5-1 to approve an ordinance that includes revisions to recently adopted RV regulations in an effort to provide more leeway for front-yard parking and increase the amount of time an RV can be occupied by guests.

“We wanted to be flexible,” Camas Community Development Director Alan Peters said after the meeting. “I also think it’s a little less enforcement-minded. We trust the residents to follow the code, look at the language and do their best to comply with it. I think that’s going to be what works.”

On June 16, the council approved the earlier ordinance that amended various sections of city code related to parking, storage, and occupancy of RVs and trailers on public streets and property, as well as private property. The ordinance prohibited RV and trailer parking in city parks, including parking lots, unless there were spaces specifically designated for such vehicles.

After councilors expressed concerns about the ordinance during their July 7 meeting, they agreed to revisit it during an Aug. 18 workshop.

“I received a lot of feedback, and I think that we would all like to give that more consideration,” Councilor Jennifer Senescu said July 7.

The earlier ordinance barred campers, motor homes and boat trailers from parking on public streets for more than 24 hours; prohibited RVs from being occupied while parked on a public street (meaning guests couldn’t sleep in an RV parked in front of a home); and limited RV parking on private property to a garage or carport or on a paved or gravel pad obscured by a 6-foot-tall fence in a rear or side yard. Parking in a front yard was allowed only on a driveway, and the vehicle couldn’t remain in a driveway for more than 72 hours.

The ordinance, which also banned RV occupation on public property and cut occupation time on private property from 10 to five days, drew criticism from Camas residents, who claimed that such determinations should be left to homeowner associations, not cities.

The new ordinance removes the 72-hour limit in favor of providing “a reasonable period of time” for loading, unloading or preparing an RV for use; changes the occupancy limit from five to seven days; and removes the screening requirement, instead stating that RVs will need to be parked outside of the front yard setback, between 20 and 30 feet from the front property line, depending on the zoning designation of the property.

“The ordinance still expresses a preference for not parking in your front yard but provides some reasonable exceptions to that. Also, if you don’t have a side yard, or it’s steep and there’s no way to get around, and your front yard is really the only place to park an RV, we will allow you to do that,” Peters said. “And we understand that when folks are preparing for camping trips or coming back, they need time to unload, and rather than set a strict time limit, we’re saying, ‘Just be reasonable about it.’ ”

The proposed revisions “provide additional property owner flexibility while maintaining the appearance of neighborhoods by reducing long-term visual obstructions and sidewalk blockages and preserve the use of driveways for parking of passenger vehicles,” according to a city staff report.

Camas resident Steve Bauer, who expressed concerns about the earlier ordinance during a July 7 meeting, told the council Monday night that he is in favor of the new ordinance, calling it “valuable” and “well-written.”

Councilor John Svilarich proposed to replace “reasonable amount of time” with “five days,” a motion that died for lack of a second. Svilarich then cast the lone “nay” vote. (Councilor John Nohr was absent).

“At the beginning of every section of the Camas Municipal Code, there’s a definition of every term. I have never seen a definition of ‘reasonable,’ ” Svilarich said. “That’s why I want to (make this) change. If the council wants to have nondefinable terms, so be it, but I think we really need to rethink this.”