I respectfully dispute this article's framing of the "camping/RV in RL zoning" issue.
For decades, campgrounds in Twentynine Palms have been allowed in RL zoning -- with a CUP! The PC (Planning Commission) decision at this meeting was simply to continue this same requirement.
Whereas reading this article, you would be forgiven if you came away with the misleading and mistaken impression that the PC was somehow springing some new scheme on residents, where suddenly a campground could be built next to your house.
What's actually happening here is that a faction which opposes most development in 29, has for months been pushing an entirely new and novel ban on how the City's RL-zoned land can be used. This faction wants to preemptively ban any possibility of camping/RV ever happening within RL zoning. They want to leverage the opportunity of the City doing routine development code updates, to execute this change. They want to strike while the iron is hot.
The PC decision at this meeting leaves the treatment of camping in RL in line with how County handles the same issue. Approval of a campground in RL would require a CUP, which is by no means easy to get.
In unincorporated County, have similar rules led to proliferation of approved campgrounds? No. In recent years the County has indeed received some campground CUP applications. While a handful have been approved, approval for others has failed.
The argument that a campground should be allowed only in Tourist Commercial zoning, or that the best solution is to wait and revise the City General Plan, is specious unless your goal is to never see any camping actually built in 29. Currently Tourist Commercial is just 1% of City area. Even if the General Plan were revisited, as a practical matter it would be incredibly difficult to increase this to, what, 3% or 5%? This entire approach makes sense only if your real intention is to zone them out of existence and never see the day one is built.
PC's decision at this meeting was entirely reasonable. The expensive and difficult CUP process already in place provides plenty of protection against misbehavior. Adding a new, additional, barrier by preemptively zoning them out of existence is unnecessary and unwarranted.
Jonathan, while we appreciate your engagement, gotta also respectfully disagree with your assertion that the article was misleading. The article accurately portrays the decision made by the Planning Commission and provides a full context for the community's concerns. The piece is not implying that the Planning Commission suddenly introduced the idea of campgrounds in Rural Living (RL) zones; rather, it is highlighting the shift in the Commission's stance from initially opposing this type of development to now allowing it under certain conditions.
The article makes it clear that while campgrounds have historically been allowed in RL zoning with a CUP, the recent decision increases the site density and may encourage more commercial development in rural areas. This change understandably raises concerns for many residents who moved to RL zones specifically to avoid commercial encroachment. It’s not about a 'new scheme' but rather about how incremental changes can open the floodgates for further development.
By suggesting the article is misleading, you're overlooking the key point the author made: that this decision represents a departure from the prior consensus to exclude campgrounds from RL zoning. Many in the community assumed this was a settled issue after months of discussion, and the Commission’s reversal can certainly feel like a sudden change of course.
The community is rightfully worried about how this could affect the character of rural areas. Residents aren't opposed to all development; they're advocating for responsible development in appropriate zones, such as Tourist Commercial areas, rather than residential spaces. Expanding development into RL zones may set a precedent that could lead to further weakening of the protections these areas currently enjoy.
Lastly, the suggestion that the CUP process provides sufficient protection is not entirely accurate. While the process may impose certain standards, it does not address broader concerns about the long-term sustainability of allowing commercial operations in RL zones. Once these projects begin, it becomes much harder to reverse course, which is why proactive measures are essential.
The article isn’t misleading at all—it’s really about highlighting the concerns people in the community have. These concerns are real and valid, and the article reflects the fear that this decision could have long-term consequences. It’s important to recognize that allowing more commercial development in rural areas might gradually change the character of the place people have chosen to call home. Understanding what this decision means for the future helps the community stay informed and involved in shaping their surroundings.
SOD | Advocating for responsible and community-backed development in Commercial Zones.
This article (blog posting) is misleading by implying there was a reversal in a decision. There is no decision until the Planning Commission forwards a recommended amendment to the City Council for approval. Until that point the discussion can continue until the Planning Commission is ready to vote on the amendment to the ordinance. It's important to note that districts zoned Rural Living (RL) are unique and not included in the other Residential zoning categories (Single-Family RS, Multi-family Residential RM, and High Density Residential R-HD). Some examples of the unique status of Rural Living includes being permitted for agricultural related uses, Churches, organizational camps, private schools, etc. (most require a CUP). Why is a campground or RV park so different? I really think people should become familiar with the Develpment Code before they make a "snap judgement".
If the "Desert Trumpet" is trying to become an unbiased credible news source, it should not mix the personal opinion of its editor with reporting the facts.
This seems like a disagreement about semantics. Was there a formal vote in February? NO. Was there a consensus with Commission members appearing to nod heads and direction provided to staff for changes that were reflected in the August 20 staff report? YES. Did this consensus about RL zoning hold at the August study session and was it reflected again in the October staff report? YES.
I guess if I were being more precise, I could have used the word "consensus" as opposed to "decision." But if direction is given to staff that results in a change to the proposal, it seems that "decision" is not an inappropriate term, whether there was a vote or not. Then if that consensus / decision changes, after nine months and two meetings, that is a reversal of a position.
Having been present at and reported on the meetings in September and November 2023 and February and August 2024 I think I have a pretty good idea of what took place. I only missed the October 15 meeting due to illness. To see a list of that reporting, look here:
Having been at those meetings, I found it odd that the lack of sufficient CT zoning was viewed at the October 15 meeting as though it was new news. The land map was examined at the February meeting and the lack of sufficient CT zoning was obvious then. In fact, after the February meeting I talked with you, Jim, about the possibility of opening up the general plan and looking at an expansion of needed CT zoning! This is also why there is a potential revision of the general plan on the future agenda items at Council.
Your perspective of a meeting from the dais is inevitably going to be different from those at the reporting desk or members of the public (or those of us who watched it on video). You are entitled to your perspective. This is my perspective. I don't think this is Rashomon. I stand by my article.
(An aside -- Jonathan wasn't at the meeting, he watched it on video. He also wasn't there in August, and I don't think he was there in February either btw, but I will address his comments with him).
We appreciate your explanation and the thought you've put into these issues, but we'd like to point out a few contradictions between your comments as a Planning Commissioner and your statements as a District 2 City Council candidate.
In your earlier remarks, you emphasized the need to reconsider allowing campgrounds and RV parks in Rural Living (RL) zones, arguing that proposed restrictions in other zones (Tourism Commercial and Public Lands) might not be commercially viable. However, in your recent candidate response, you expressed concern about the October 15 meeting and mentioned that you wished to have recommended not moving forward with the amendment, citing the need for more time and additional research. This suggests uncertainty about whether RL zoning is indeed appropriate for these developments.
Additionally, your earlier assertion that the Commission’s decision was simply an extension of what’s already permitted with a CUP seems to downplay the significance of reconsidering the exclusion of RL zoning. The reality is that this feels like a shift for many residents, especially those who moved to RL areas precisely to avoid commercial encroachment. Your shifting stance on whether campgrounds belong in RL zones reflects a broader dilemma—how can the city promote tourism without disrupting the rural character that so many residents deeply value.
Moreover, while you emphasize that no final decision has been made until it reaches the City Council, the article’s characterization of the Planning Commission’s discussions as a "reversal" isn’t misleading. The discussions over several months showed an initial consensus against campgrounds in RL zoning, but that stance changed, which is what community members are reacting to.
Your acknowledgment of the need for further research on zoning maps and lot sizes underscores the complexity of this issue. However, this very complexity also reinforces the community's call for a cautious, well-considered approach that respects the rural nature of RL zones. Rushing such decisions without a deep understanding of the impacts only heightens concerns.
Healthy debate and scrutiny are essential, but discrediting the integrity of journalists without valid evidence does not foster transparency or trust. This is especially important when the community depends on these outlets to stay informed about decisions that directly impact their lives.
SOD | Advocating for responsible and community-backed development in Commercial Zones.
By the way, Jim, did you also write Kurt at The Desert Trail and accuse him the way you did me? His headline reads “City reverses course on campground permits.”
First, there were no accusations, just a correction that there was no decision to be reversed. There was lots of discussion with a consensus going one way and then another as additional information was brought up. Second, I have previously written to Mr. Schauppner about Desert Trail articles that have had either mistakes or misquotations and he has printed corrections. I will read the Desert Trail article and consider the response.
I read the Desert Trail article, I have no issues with Mr. Schauppner's reporting. He is correct the Commission did reverse direction (not decision). Mr. Schauppner, in a succinct manner, described the events of October 15 meeting. I also heard Heather Clisby's reporting on KCDZ about the October 15 meeting and it was accurate with no underlying opinion.
Interesting comment of the Save Our Deserts organization. Please allow me to make the following response, observations, and corrections.
First, Mr. Max Walker is the Chairman of the Planning Commission, and I am one of five votes that recommend any amendments to the City Council. Second, being transparent in my thought processes as I consider all sides of an issue is not a contradiction in position just the normal process of being a conscientious Planning Commissioner. I have to ask the question of why the particular concern with RV parks and campgrounds when the following uses are permitted in Rural Living zones RL-1, RL-2.5 and RL-5:
RESIDENTIAL USES AND CARE FACILITIES
Single-family dwelling
Gated community
Small family day care (8 or fewer children)
Large family day care (9 to 14 children)
Child day care center, commercial
Residential or community care facilities serving 6 or fewer persons
Residential or community care facilities serving 7 or more persons
Congregate care facilities serving 6 or fewer persons
Congregate care facilities serving 7 or more persons
Supportive housing/transitional housing
Mobile home parks
Caretaker housing
Windmills and Solar Energy Collectors – Non commercial
AGRICULTURAL AND RELATED USES
Row, field, and tree crops, for noncommercial purposes
Row, field and tree crops, for commercial purposes
Cultivation of ornamental or landscaping plants, including in greenhouses, for commercial purposes
Produce stands
Retail nurseries
INSTITUTIONAL USES
Cemeteries
Churches, synagogues, temples and other religious facilities
Campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks (the issue)
Vacation Home Rental
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, AND UTILITIES
Communication facilities
Transportation facilities
This portion of the Development Code is located at Article 2: - Land Use/Zoning Districts | Code of Ordinances | Twentynine Palms, CA | Municode Library. I live in a Rural Living Zoned District and I see that I can put in non-commercial solar energy collectors on the 2.5 acres I own next to my single-family dwelling without a CUP, that's great - Thanks for the heads-up.
Since the town’s website lists you as Chair of the Planning Commission, it would be beneficial to address this discrepancy. The public relies on accurate information to know who’s making decisions that affect their community, so getting this right isn’t just helpful—it’s essential. https://www.ci.twentynine-palms.ca.us/planning-commission
On the matter of zoning, let’s be clear: comparing RV parks and campgrounds with other allowable uses in Rural Living (RL) zones isn’t just oversimplified; it misrepresents the reality on the ground.
The Development Code may permit certain uses, but not all uses are equal.
Low-impact activities like small family daycares or non-commercial residential solar panels fit the peaceful character of RL zones without drawing large crowds, constant traffic, or heavy noise. Suggesting that RV parks bring the same “low impact” to RL zones is out of touch with reality—and it’s surprising to hear.
Allowing campgrounds in RL zones doesn’t just mean a few extra visitors. Today’s camping has evolved far beyond classic Airstreams, quiet campfires, and kids chasing lizards. It’s about caravans of RVs with toy haulers, Bluetooth speakers, string lights, rubbish and pop-up amenities that create “mini-towns” of tourists—who may or may not respect local quiet hours.
Meanwhile, the days of simple tent camping out of the back of a station wagon while roasting weenies on a twig are long gone, replaced by glamping, pools, permanent bathrooms, and high-turnover bookings. It’s hardly the peaceful rural desert landscape residents moved here for.
Time for a reality check.
We all want to have fun and live the American dream. There’s plenty of space in this vast desert à la commercial zoning . Why is the commission so intent on plopping this all in backyard of our homes?
When a Planning Commissioner asks, “Why is a campground or RV park so different (than other RL allowable uses)?” it’s concerning, to say the least. The answer is fundamental to the character and purpose of RL zoning. RV parks and modern glamping setups bring transient populations, increased traffic, high noise levels, and demand commercial-grade infrastructure that doesn’t belong in rural, residential zones. This issue isn’t just about what’s “technically” allowed—it’s about preserving RL areas for long-term residents who chose this lifestyle precisely to avoid makeshift RV resorts.
RL zone residents aren’t opposed to development; they want thoughtful growth that respects the spirit of RL zoning. They’re calling for development that honors the peaceful, residential nature of their neighborhoods—not a loophole that invites tourist traffic, resource strain, and round-the-clock turnover.
And please, enjoy the quiet and clean energy from those potential future non-commercial residential solar panels at your home, Commissioner Krushat—we’re sure you’d prefer this to a campground being crammed into that 2.5 acre lot.
SOD | Advocating for responsible and community-backed development in Commercial Zones.
I respectfully dispute this article's framing of the "camping/RV in RL zoning" issue.
For decades, campgrounds in Twentynine Palms have been allowed in RL zoning -- with a CUP! The PC (Planning Commission) decision at this meeting was simply to continue this same requirement.
Whereas reading this article, you would be forgiven if you came away with the misleading and mistaken impression that the PC was somehow springing some new scheme on residents, where suddenly a campground could be built next to your house.
What's actually happening here is that a faction which opposes most development in 29, has for months been pushing an entirely new and novel ban on how the City's RL-zoned land can be used. This faction wants to preemptively ban any possibility of camping/RV ever happening within RL zoning. They want to leverage the opportunity of the City doing routine development code updates, to execute this change. They want to strike while the iron is hot.
The PC decision at this meeting leaves the treatment of camping in RL in line with how County handles the same issue. Approval of a campground in RL would require a CUP, which is by no means easy to get.
In unincorporated County, have similar rules led to proliferation of approved campgrounds? No. In recent years the County has indeed received some campground CUP applications. While a handful have been approved, approval for others has failed.
The argument that a campground should be allowed only in Tourist Commercial zoning, or that the best solution is to wait and revise the City General Plan, is specious unless your goal is to never see any camping actually built in 29. Currently Tourist Commercial is just 1% of City area. Even if the General Plan were revisited, as a practical matter it would be incredibly difficult to increase this to, what, 3% or 5%? This entire approach makes sense only if your real intention is to zone them out of existence and never see the day one is built.
PC's decision at this meeting was entirely reasonable. The expensive and difficult CUP process already in place provides plenty of protection against misbehavior. Adding a new, additional, barrier by preemptively zoning them out of existence is unnecessary and unwarranted.
Jonathan, while we appreciate your engagement, gotta also respectfully disagree with your assertion that the article was misleading. The article accurately portrays the decision made by the Planning Commission and provides a full context for the community's concerns. The piece is not implying that the Planning Commission suddenly introduced the idea of campgrounds in Rural Living (RL) zones; rather, it is highlighting the shift in the Commission's stance from initially opposing this type of development to now allowing it under certain conditions.
The article makes it clear that while campgrounds have historically been allowed in RL zoning with a CUP, the recent decision increases the site density and may encourage more commercial development in rural areas. This change understandably raises concerns for many residents who moved to RL zones specifically to avoid commercial encroachment. It’s not about a 'new scheme' but rather about how incremental changes can open the floodgates for further development.
By suggesting the article is misleading, you're overlooking the key point the author made: that this decision represents a departure from the prior consensus to exclude campgrounds from RL zoning. Many in the community assumed this was a settled issue after months of discussion, and the Commission’s reversal can certainly feel like a sudden change of course.
The community is rightfully worried about how this could affect the character of rural areas. Residents aren't opposed to all development; they're advocating for responsible development in appropriate zones, such as Tourist Commercial areas, rather than residential spaces. Expanding development into RL zones may set a precedent that could lead to further weakening of the protections these areas currently enjoy.
Lastly, the suggestion that the CUP process provides sufficient protection is not entirely accurate. While the process may impose certain standards, it does not address broader concerns about the long-term sustainability of allowing commercial operations in RL zones. Once these projects begin, it becomes much harder to reverse course, which is why proactive measures are essential.
The article isn’t misleading at all—it’s really about highlighting the concerns people in the community have. These concerns are real and valid, and the article reflects the fear that this decision could have long-term consequences. It’s important to recognize that allowing more commercial development in rural areas might gradually change the character of the place people have chosen to call home. Understanding what this decision means for the future helps the community stay informed and involved in shaping their surroundings.
SOD | Advocating for responsible and community-backed development in Commercial Zones.
This article (blog posting) is misleading by implying there was a reversal in a decision. There is no decision until the Planning Commission forwards a recommended amendment to the City Council for approval. Until that point the discussion can continue until the Planning Commission is ready to vote on the amendment to the ordinance. It's important to note that districts zoned Rural Living (RL) are unique and not included in the other Residential zoning categories (Single-Family RS, Multi-family Residential RM, and High Density Residential R-HD). Some examples of the unique status of Rural Living includes being permitted for agricultural related uses, Churches, organizational camps, private schools, etc. (most require a CUP). Why is a campground or RV park so different? I really think people should become familiar with the Develpment Code before they make a "snap judgement".
If the "Desert Trumpet" is trying to become an unbiased credible news source, it should not mix the personal opinion of its editor with reporting the facts.
This seems like a disagreement about semantics. Was there a formal vote in February? NO. Was there a consensus with Commission members appearing to nod heads and direction provided to staff for changes that were reflected in the August 20 staff report? YES. Did this consensus about RL zoning hold at the August study session and was it reflected again in the October staff report? YES.
I guess if I were being more precise, I could have used the word "consensus" as opposed to "decision." But if direction is given to staff that results in a change to the proposal, it seems that "decision" is not an inappropriate term, whether there was a vote or not. Then if that consensus / decision changes, after nine months and two meetings, that is a reversal of a position.
Having been present at and reported on the meetings in September and November 2023 and February and August 2024 I think I have a pretty good idea of what took place. I only missed the October 15 meeting due to illness. To see a list of that reporting, look here:
https://www.deserttrumpet.org/t/resorts-glamping
Having been at those meetings, I found it odd that the lack of sufficient CT zoning was viewed at the October 15 meeting as though it was new news. The land map was examined at the February meeting and the lack of sufficient CT zoning was obvious then. In fact, after the February meeting I talked with you, Jim, about the possibility of opening up the general plan and looking at an expansion of needed CT zoning! This is also why there is a potential revision of the general plan on the future agenda items at Council.
Your perspective of a meeting from the dais is inevitably going to be different from those at the reporting desk or members of the public (or those of us who watched it on video). You are entitled to your perspective. This is my perspective. I don't think this is Rashomon. I stand by my article.
(An aside -- Jonathan wasn't at the meeting, he watched it on video. He also wasn't there in August, and I don't think he was there in February either btw, but I will address his comments with him).
Dear Planning Commissioner Chair Krushat,
We appreciate your explanation and the thought you've put into these issues, but we'd like to point out a few contradictions between your comments as a Planning Commissioner and your statements as a District 2 City Council candidate.
In your earlier remarks, you emphasized the need to reconsider allowing campgrounds and RV parks in Rural Living (RL) zones, arguing that proposed restrictions in other zones (Tourism Commercial and Public Lands) might not be commercially viable. However, in your recent candidate response, you expressed concern about the October 15 meeting and mentioned that you wished to have recommended not moving forward with the amendment, citing the need for more time and additional research. This suggests uncertainty about whether RL zoning is indeed appropriate for these developments.
Additionally, your earlier assertion that the Commission’s decision was simply an extension of what’s already permitted with a CUP seems to downplay the significance of reconsidering the exclusion of RL zoning. The reality is that this feels like a shift for many residents, especially those who moved to RL areas precisely to avoid commercial encroachment. Your shifting stance on whether campgrounds belong in RL zones reflects a broader dilemma—how can the city promote tourism without disrupting the rural character that so many residents deeply value.
Moreover, while you emphasize that no final decision has been made until it reaches the City Council, the article’s characterization of the Planning Commission’s discussions as a "reversal" isn’t misleading. The discussions over several months showed an initial consensus against campgrounds in RL zoning, but that stance changed, which is what community members are reacting to.
Your acknowledgment of the need for further research on zoning maps and lot sizes underscores the complexity of this issue. However, this very complexity also reinforces the community's call for a cautious, well-considered approach that respects the rural nature of RL zones. Rushing such decisions without a deep understanding of the impacts only heightens concerns.
Healthy debate and scrutiny are essential, but discrediting the integrity of journalists without valid evidence does not foster transparency or trust. This is especially important when the community depends on these outlets to stay informed about decisions that directly impact their lives.
SOD | Advocating for responsible and community-backed development in Commercial Zones.
By the way, Jim, did you also write Kurt at The Desert Trail and accuse him the way you did me? His headline reads “City reverses course on campground permits.”
First, there were no accusations, just a correction that there was no decision to be reversed. There was lots of discussion with a consensus going one way and then another as additional information was brought up. Second, I have previously written to Mr. Schauppner about Desert Trail articles that have had either mistakes or misquotations and he has printed corrections. I will read the Desert Trail article and consider the response.
Ah, well it's good to know that at least we are in good company!
I read the Desert Trail article, I have no issues with Mr. Schauppner's reporting. He is correct the Commission did reverse direction (not decision). Mr. Schauppner, in a succinct manner, described the events of October 15 meeting. I also heard Heather Clisby's reporting on KCDZ about the October 15 meeting and it was accurate with no underlying opinion.
Interesting comment of the Save Our Deserts organization. Please allow me to make the following response, observations, and corrections.
First, Mr. Max Walker is the Chairman of the Planning Commission, and I am one of five votes that recommend any amendments to the City Council. Second, being transparent in my thought processes as I consider all sides of an issue is not a contradiction in position just the normal process of being a conscientious Planning Commissioner. I have to ask the question of why the particular concern with RV parks and campgrounds when the following uses are permitted in Rural Living zones RL-1, RL-2.5 and RL-5:
RESIDENTIAL USES AND CARE FACILITIES
Single-family dwelling
Gated community
Small family day care (8 or fewer children)
Large family day care (9 to 14 children)
Child day care center, commercial
Residential or community care facilities serving 6 or fewer persons
Residential or community care facilities serving 7 or more persons
Congregate care facilities serving 6 or fewer persons
Congregate care facilities serving 7 or more persons
Supportive housing/transitional housing
Mobile home parks
Caretaker housing
Windmills and Solar Energy Collectors – Non commercial
AGRICULTURAL AND RELATED USES
Row, field, and tree crops, for noncommercial purposes
Row, field and tree crops, for commercial purposes
Cultivation of ornamental or landscaping plants, including in greenhouses, for commercial purposes
Produce stands
Retail nurseries
INSTITUTIONAL USES
Cemeteries
Churches, synagogues, temples and other religious facilities
Organizational /Group camps
Governmental facilities
Hospitals
School, private
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Racetracks and stadiums
Public stables or horse boarding facilities
Sports-oriented recreational facilities requiring remote locations
TRANSIENT LODGING FACILITIES
Host home (Bed and Breakfast)
Bed and breakfast home
Bed and breakfast inns/lodges
Campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks (the issue)
Vacation Home Rental
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, AND UTILITIES
Communication facilities
Transportation facilities
This portion of the Development Code is located at Article 2: - Land Use/Zoning Districts | Code of Ordinances | Twentynine Palms, CA | Municode Library. I live in a Rural Living Zoned District and I see that I can put in non-commercial solar energy collectors on the 2.5 acres I own next to my single-family dwelling without a CUP, that's great - Thanks for the heads-up.
Jim
Since the town’s website lists you as Chair of the Planning Commission, it would be beneficial to address this discrepancy. The public relies on accurate information to know who’s making decisions that affect their community, so getting this right isn’t just helpful—it’s essential. https://www.ci.twentynine-palms.ca.us/planning-commission
On the matter of zoning, let’s be clear: comparing RV parks and campgrounds with other allowable uses in Rural Living (RL) zones isn’t just oversimplified; it misrepresents the reality on the ground.
The Development Code may permit certain uses, but not all uses are equal.
Low-impact activities like small family daycares or non-commercial residential solar panels fit the peaceful character of RL zones without drawing large crowds, constant traffic, or heavy noise. Suggesting that RV parks bring the same “low impact” to RL zones is out of touch with reality—and it’s surprising to hear.
Allowing campgrounds in RL zones doesn’t just mean a few extra visitors. Today’s camping has evolved far beyond classic Airstreams, quiet campfires, and kids chasing lizards. It’s about caravans of RVs with toy haulers, Bluetooth speakers, string lights, rubbish and pop-up amenities that create “mini-towns” of tourists—who may or may not respect local quiet hours.
Meanwhile, the days of simple tent camping out of the back of a station wagon while roasting weenies on a twig are long gone, replaced by glamping, pools, permanent bathrooms, and high-turnover bookings. It’s hardly the peaceful rural desert landscape residents moved here for.
Time for a reality check.
We all want to have fun and live the American dream. There’s plenty of space in this vast desert à la commercial zoning . Why is the commission so intent on plopping this all in backyard of our homes?
When a Planning Commissioner asks, “Why is a campground or RV park so different (than other RL allowable uses)?” it’s concerning, to say the least. The answer is fundamental to the character and purpose of RL zoning. RV parks and modern glamping setups bring transient populations, increased traffic, high noise levels, and demand commercial-grade infrastructure that doesn’t belong in rural, residential zones. This issue isn’t just about what’s “technically” allowed—it’s about preserving RL areas for long-term residents who chose this lifestyle precisely to avoid makeshift RV resorts.
RL zone residents aren’t opposed to development; they want thoughtful growth that respects the spirit of RL zoning. They’re calling for development that honors the peaceful, residential nature of their neighborhoods—not a loophole that invites tourist traffic, resource strain, and round-the-clock turnover.
And please, enjoy the quiet and clean energy from those potential future non-commercial residential solar panels at your home, Commissioner Krushat—we’re sure you’d prefer this to a campground being crammed into that 2.5 acre lot.
SOD | Advocating for responsible and community-backed development in Commercial Zones.