City questions use of RVs on vacant Chetco River property

A view from the top of the driveway of the property at 241 Chetco Ave.

While there seems to be no written definition, the city of Brookings says property is “developed” when there is a building on it, and an RV cannot be used as a home – or temporary dwelling – unless the property is developed, and then for only 14 days.

Owners of the property at 241 Chetco Ave. disagree with the city’s interpretation of “developed property,” and won a temporary reprieve for their travel trailers Monday night.

The buildings are long gone, but the foundations,  as well as the electrical, water and sewer hookups, are still present and functional.

Dennis Sullivan and Lloyd Bendrickson, owners of the property, have plans to build condominiums there. They have owned the land for 13 years and for the last 10 years they have parked their travel trailers by the river.

They stay in the trailers when they are visiting from their homes in Medford, Bendrickson said.

“We stay on our boat at the harbor,” he said.

The RVs have been used occasionally by their wives when Bendrickson and Sullivan leave the port in the dark hours of the morning for fishing expeditions.

“No one is trying to live there,” Bendrickson said. “We’re not asking to exceed the two week limit.”

Much of the discussion at city council came down to semantics: What does the word “developed” mean?

The city ordinance governing the issue states that RVs and travel trailers can not be used in non-RV park for long-term occupancy. They can only be used on private property if the property is developed, the RV can not hooked up to water or sewer services, and can be used for temporary living quarters for no longer than 14 days.

Storage of RVs and travel trailers is an “accessory use,” said Planning Director Dianne Morris. A primary, permanent building is required.

Bendrickson said “developed” means the property has sewer, water and electrical lines, roads or driveways, and is ready for construction.

Brookings Building Official Colby-Hanks disagreed.

“The term we use for that is “shovel ready,” she said.

Developed, according to the city staff, has been interpreted as the property having a building appropriate to its zoning. In the case of the property at 241 Chetco Ave., that would be a multi-family dwelling.

If the owners of the property submitted plans for their condominiums and had construction supplies on the property they would be able to stay  there in an RV as a security measure, said Morris.

There have been others in Brookings who have also been evicted from their properties, including a recent situation near the schools, Morris said.

“We can’t have an RV on every vacant lot in the city,” said City Manager Gary Milliman.

Councilor Pieper agreed with Bendrickson about the definition of “developed.”

“A developer prepares the lots and brings in utilities,” Pieper said. “A builder improves the property.”

“I would define the property as developed, he said.”

Counselor Dave Kitchen, a general contractor, defined a developed property as one that has an appropriate permanent structure.

“I don’t know how there could be a question – it either is or is not developed,” Kitchen said.

Milliman and the council  agreed that the definition of “developed” needs to be clarified.

“The code should have a definition included of what is a ‘developed property,’” Milliman said.

However, clarifying the ordinance did not solve the entire problem.

“This isn’t the clearest, cleanest situation,” Mayor Larry Anderson said.

There are exceptions to nearly every ordinance in town, and this is different enough to consider an exception, Hedenskog said.

“It stands out as a unique parcel,” he said.

Milliman suggested a compromise, an exception in the code for large parcels “rural in nature” such as the Bendrickson/Sullivan property.

“That might be the fix,” Morris said on Tuesday.

The council instructed staff to look into exceptions for large or unique “rural” parcels and to define “developed property” more clearly for future reference, to be considered at the July 27 council meeting. It was unclear if the staff would also define “rural.”

The council extended the abatement period until that time.