Sean C. Morgan
A retired Sweet Home couple’s request to stay in their recreational vehicle between trips out of town has been denied, leaving them and city officials pondering their options.
The Sweet Home City Council last week denied an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a conditional use permit to allow the couple to live in a recreational vehicle outside their house when they are in Sweet Home.
The council voted 4-3 following a public hearing on April 22 to deny the appeal. The councilors found no way, within city codes, to justify allowing the couple to exceed the annual limit of seven days for staying in an RV, but they have asked the Public Safety Committee and the Planning Commission to review the relevant nuisance and zoning ordinances.
Brady Pickle and his wife, Jodi, have lived at 3805 Long St. for 30 years. He is a retired logger, and she is a retired bookkeeper. They plan to travel as much as they can while their health allows them to.
“When we are gone for a month or so at a time, we need someone to be staying at our house because we have so much foot traffic by all hours of the day and night,” Brady Pickle said. “We have been robbed twice, and what they steal, we never get back.”
Two of their grandchildren and their families are living in the house due to difficult circumstances, Pickle said. “It also helps us so we can be gone and not worry about someone breaking in.
“What we want is a place to stay when we are in town as a home base. We would be there about one to three weeks at a time to take care of doctor appointments and such.”
They had been there longer than they typically want to stay, Pickle said. They would have been in Arizona right now except that Jodi Pickle fell on the ice and was hurt badly, and Brady Pickle has a knee replacement coming up. Afterward, they intend to travel to Alaska.
City code enforcement received a report that someone was staying in their RV, and that prompted the Pickles to apply for a conditional use. The Planning Commission denied the permit in March.
Pickle said he didn’t want to appeal, but this is an important issue that goes far beyond him. He wanted to see the ordinance changed.
While he was unaware of the restrictions on staying in an RV, he understands why the city had the ordinance.
Times have changed though, he said.
About 20 percent of Sweet Home is retired, he said. “I would say that 20 percent pretty much supports this community.”
Among them are others who travel and want to return, he said, but they are required to park in an RV park instead of at their homes.
“That’s unAmerican,” Pickle said. He has talked to others who own and use their Rvs. “If it doesn’t change, I’m not the only one in this city saying I’ve had enough. I’m leaving. I don’t understand why, when we already have problems, why you want to put more problems on the people supporting this community.”
Pickle has connected the RV to the city’s sewer system and meets setback requirements for the zoning, he said, and his property meets all of the requirements for a park.
Local residents Sam Lucontro, Michael O’Malley, Mary Boyd and Nick Hutchins told the council they supported the Pickles.
“If they continue to do what they’re doing now, it’s not hurting anyone,” Lucontro said. “It’s not like if you change this you’ll have an overrun of people living in them. We’ll be doing something we’re already doing.”
Ted Sellers told the council that if it made an exception for one person, it opens it up for everyone. He thinks there is another answer, perhaps by changing the requirements under special circumstances.
“Our empathy and sympathy goes to them,” said Henry Wolthuis, chairman of the Planning Commission, who later submitted a letter to the editor to The New Era about the issue (see page 4). Existing zoning codes do not allow for their request.
Maybe that’s something that should be revised, Wolthuis said. He wouldn’t be opposed to revision.
City planning consultant Carol Lewis said that she has handled 15 requests, counting this one, in the past 20 years. Of those, all but two were for medical hardships. All but two used RVs. The difference in the past for the commission is that they have normally been for hardships.
Additionally, the council and commission both tried to figure out whether an RV is even allowed as an “accessory dwelling,” which is what the conditional use permit would allow.
It has just never come up in this light before, Lewis said.
Councilor Greg Mahler wondered whether the council could offer a temporary conditional use permit while the Planning Commission revisits the issue.
Mahler identified two situations, one where a person lives in an RV 365 days per year, and ones like this where they are used temporarily.
Councilor Dave Trask said he doesn’t have a “huge issue” with the Pickles using their RV in between trips.
The council must make the decision based on the criteria in place now, said Councilor Scott McKee Jr. “We’re burning up time, giving people false hope.”
“Then you’d better start hiring a whole bunch of code enforcement officers,” Mahler responded. “Like a couple hundred, a thousand.”
“As bad as I hate this, I think we have a law on the books,” Trask said. “I feel we have to enforce this law. I think we need to get on with things.”
“I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong,” said Councilor Marybeth Angulo.
Trask called it an awkward situation.
Voting to deny the permit were councilors Craig Fentiman, Mayor Jim Gourley, McKee and Trask.
Voting to approve the permit were councilors Mahler, Angulo and Bruce Hobbs.
“The good thing about this is they’re going to redo their codes,” Pickle said. “Not only will it benefit me, it’ll benefit a whole lot of people. What I was intending, it wasn’t just to get the permit. My intention was to try to get enough interest to change these codes.”
The appeal period for the decision is 21 days. City Manager Craig Martin said the city won’t pursue any action against the Pickles using the RV during the appeals period.