Municipal Attorney Daniel Blasdell believes that banning recreational vehicles from city limits is a mistake.

Blasdell discussed the matter with City Council during the Tuesday meeting. He said an ordinance already exists that prohibits any type of vehicles from being parked in front or side yards in all zoned areas.

North Main Street resident Nora Salmen submitted a letter to council earlier this month wishing to have RVs banned because she believes they are “devaluing property and the atmosphere of the whole town.”

Planning Commission Chairman Richard McBane said the matter was discussed in detail at its recent meeting. The matter had been forwarded to the commission by Mayor Dave Spatholt following the May 1 council meeting when Salmen’s letter was read aloud.

“We talked a lot about whether there should be a total ban versus restrictions on whether to park on private property. We were concerned about a need for commercial storage. There are one or two businesses in town that provide storage; that’s something we should probably take into account,” McBane said.

He also said that of the two photographs of RVs Salmen attached with her letter, one was parked on commercial property. The RV was in a parking lot on North Main Street. The other RV was parked in a back yard of a Firestone Avenue property.

McBane then argued that RVs are occasionally parked outside a home in preparation for a trip.

“There are a lot of situations in which people are getting ready to go on a trip. I have a small RV, a pop-up camper, and it might be sitting there a few days before we actually take a trip. There (needs) to be some sort of accommodation for people who may have it on their property for a period of time,” he said.

RVs parked outside are also occasionally those of out-of-town residents visiting family or friends, he added.

During his research of other communities he found that a 1977 ordinance banning RVs in Euclid was overturned by the Ohio Appeals Court.

“Basically (the court) said that any ordinances that are based on aesthetic purposes only are illegal. They have to be based on public health, safety, morals or welfare,” he said.

Salmen did not cite any of these issues as a reason for banning RVs in her letter.

McBane said the planning commission wants to gather more input from council, city residents and Blasdell before making a decision, and asked Blasdell to weigh in on the matter.

Blasdell said most of the ordinances he has seen in other communities “indicate a focus on placing them in an areas where they are less noticeable.”

He pointed out the city’s current ordinance does not prohibit RVs from being parked in back yards- only front or side yards-and said that a driveway could be considered a front or side yard.

He said the matter is a “dicey issue” because a lot of people have RVs. “In my opinion an attempt to ban them is a mistake.”

kschwendeman@mojonews.com

COLUMBIANA – Municipal Attorney Daniel Blasdell believes that banning recreational vehicles from city limits is a mistake.

Blasdell discussed the matter with City Council during the Tuesday meeting. He said an ordinance already exists that prohibits any type of vehicles from being parked in front or side yards in all zoned areas.

North Main Street resident Nora Salmen submitted a letter to council earlier this month wishing to have RVs banned because she believes they are “devaluing property and the atmosphere of the whole town.”

Planning Commission Chairman Richard McBane said the matter was discussed in detail at its recent meeting. The matter had been forwarded to the commission by Mayor Dave Spatholt following the May 1 council meeting when Salmen’s letter was read aloud.

“We talked a lot about whether there should be a total ban versus restrictions on whether to park on private property. We were concerned about a need for commercial storage. There are one or two businesses in town that provide storage; that’s something we should probably take into account,” McBane said.

He also said that of the two photographs of RVs Salmen attached with her letter, one was parked on commercial property.

The RV was in a parking lot on North Main Street. The other RV was parked in a back yard of a Firestone Avenue property.

McBane then argued that RVs are occasionally parked outside a home in preparation for a trip.

“There are a lot of situations in which people are getting ready to go on a trip. I have a small RV, a pop-up camper, and it might be sitting there a few days before we actually take a trip. There (needs) to be some sort of accommodation for people who may have it on their property for a period of time,” he said.

RVs parked outside are also occasionally those of out-of-town residents visiting family or friends, he added.

During his research of other communities he found that a 1977 ordinance banning RVs in Euclid was overturned by the Ohio Appeals Court.

“Basically (the court) said that any ordinances that are based on aesthetic purposes only are illegal. They have to be based on public health, safety, morals or welfare,” he said.

Salmen did not cite any of these issues as a reason for banning RVs in her letter.

McBane said the planning commission wants to gather more input from council, city residents and Blasdell before making a decision, and asked Blasdell to weigh in on the matter.

Blasdell said most of the ordinances he has seen in other communities “indicate a focus on placing them in an areas where they are less noticeable.”

He pointed out the city’s current ordinance does not prohibit RVs from being parked in back yards- only front or side yards-and said that a driveway could be considered a front or side yard.

He said the matter is a “dicey issue” because a lot of people have RVs. “In my opinion an attempt to ban them is a mistake.”

Dear EarthTalk: I understand there is an effort underway to allow all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, motorbikes, motorboats and other motorized vehicles into wilderness areas, which would overturn a long-standing ban. What’s behind this?

– Harry Schilling

Tempe, AZ

A new bill making its way through Congress, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act (H.R. 2834), aims to make federally managed public lands across millions of acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management property more accessible to hunters and anglers. And a key element of the bill calls for allowing motorized vehicles and equipment-as long as they are used for hunting or fishing-into these areas. Leading green groups are outraged because this would undermine 1964′s Wilderness Act which expressly bans motor vehicles on these last wild vestiges of untrammeled American land.

According to the nonprofit Wilderness Society, the motorized vehicles provision “would result in the destruction of the very wilderness values that millions of American hunters and anglers cherish.”

“The practical effect could be to open all designated wilderness areas to all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, motorbikes, motorboats, chainsaws and other motorized vehicles and equipment…” warns Wilderness Society president William Meadows in a letter to Congress. He adds that buildings, towers and temporary roads could even be built in currently pristine stretches of wilderness if the proposed bill becomes law.

But what’s most troubling to Meadows and others is language in the bill saying that “any requirements imposed by (the Wilderness Act) shall be implemented only insofar as they facilitate or enhance the original primary purpose or purposes for which the federal public lands or land unit was established and do not materially interfere with or hinder such purpose or purposes.” Meadows fears this could be construed to allow road building, timber cutting, mining, oil and gas drilling and other development in our remaining wilderness areas.

Another beef environmentalists have with the bill is that it would exempt decisions made or actions taken with regard to hunting and fishing on federal lands from federal environmental review and public disclosure regulations established under 1969′s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Wilderness Society reports that this part of HR2834 would keep the public and concerned parties out of decisions to compromise the integrity of wilderness but also other types of protected lands.

First introduced in the house last September by Michigan Republican Dan Benishek (with 45 bi-partisan co-sponsors), HR2834 made it through the House Natural Resources Committee within three months and is poised for a full House vote later this spring. If it passes there, the Senate will take up a companion version, S. 2066, sponsored by Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. Depending on how it plays out, the bill could be on the President’s desk by the summer.

“Recreational fishing and hunting are important and vital recreational activities on our federal public lands,” concludes the Wilderness Society, “but the anti-Wilderness provisions of H.R. 2834 should not be allowed to become law.”

CONTACTS: H.R. 2834, www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2834; Wilderness Society, www.wilderness.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E – The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.