The Battle Ground City Council will reconsider its RV parking ordinance following concerns about fire safety raised by local officials.
On Monday, May 18, the council unanimously approved a motion made by council member Jeanie Kuypers to revisit its recently adopted ordinance. Battle Ground Fire District 3 Fire Marshal Chris Drone raised concerns about fire safety during a study session and in a letter to the council on April 20.
The ordinance, approved April 6 and effective May 7, eliminated previous setback requirements, allowing residents to park RVs, trailers and boats in driveways in front of the building line. The ordinance began as a proposal to allow one RV to be parked in front of a home. During the April 6 meeting, council members expanded the measure to permit up to three RVs or trailers on a residential lot, including in backyards, before ultimately removing the three-vehicle cap from the final language through a series of amendments.
During the workshop, Drone said Fire District 3’s primary concern centered on the removal of setback requirements that previously created separation between RVs and neighboring properties.
“Eliminating those setbacks and putting an RV, or a trailer, or a boat closer to your neighbor’s property line, increases the likelihood of fire spreading to an adjacent property if there is a fire in an RV,” Drone said. “It also limits our access around a residence for hose deployment, rescue operations, things (of) that nature.”
Drone told the council that setback requirements are common in other jurisdictions and said fire officials generally prefer at least 5 feet of clearance for access and fire separation.
The discussion among council members during the workshop later turned to balancing property rights and public safety, and to whether to revisit the ordinance immediately.
Council member Troy McCoy asked Drone about the frequency and severity of RV fires compared with those in accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
“We’ve had 23 RV fires in the last five years,” Drone said.
When McCoy asked which type of structure burns faster, Drone responded, “Oh, RV by far.”
Council member Brian Munson argued that the council had already planned to revisit the ordinance after one year to review how the changes affected the city and whether any additional concerns emerged.
“I think within a year we’re going to have the kind of data we need to see,” Munson said. “There’s no reason in a year from now we can’t come back and if there are concerns that are legit, we adjust the legacy.”
Munson also recommended that city staff reach out to local public safety officials earlier in the process of similar ordinances to avoid their current situation. McCoy, however, argued the final ordinance expanded far beyond what council members originally discussed during workshops.
“All we had discussed at the retreat and the first meeting was allowing one RV in the front,” McCoy said. “This council then took that, threw it out of the car, kicked it, punched it, and buried it, and then allowed (over) three RVs in the backyard.”
Council member Jeanie Kuypers, who originally recommended the one-year review, said the council should not wait a year to revisit the ordinance considering Drone’s public safety concerns. She added that the original one-year review was meant to evaluate the number of RVs allowed on properties, not the fire risks that have since been raised.
“I would be concerned (about what) additional data we’d be looking at now, how many fires there were that impacted homes because we allowed something,” Kuypers said. “If we wait a year, we’re basically saying it doesn’t matter for a year.”
Council member Victoria Ferrer questioned whether the ordinance meaningfully changed setback standards, as RVs are classified as vehicles rather than structures.
“I considered it a vehicle, it’s a recreational vehicle,” Ferrer said. “And I think it’d be another case if we were talking about ADUs or other dwelling units or structures that would be built on your property.”
City Attorney Aziza Foster clarified that the previous code explicitly required RVs to meet setback requirements, whereas the newly adopted ordinance removed those requirements in many parking situations.
Mayor Eric Overholser, who attended last week’s meeting online, said the council may not have fully considered fire safety implications before passing the ordinance, advocating for its reconsideration.
“I don’t know if I could sleep at night if I knew that the ordinance that we made caused somebody else damage to their property, god forbid, health issues, or risk of life (if) we sat on our hands for a year waiting to see if something was going to happen,” Overholser said.
Overholser agreed with McCoy that council leadership, including himself, should have directed staff to involve the fire district earlier in the process.
“Maybe we as council and myself as mayor could have done a better job of directing staff,” Overholser said.
Council member and Fire District 3 Commissioner Shane Bowman noted that the city had prohibited RV parking in front of homes since 1995. He warned that expanded allowances could make code enforcement more difficult.
Later in the regular meeting, the council unanimously approved Kuypers’ motion to have staff bring the ordinance back for reconsideration at a future council meeting.
