Kaplan's proposed RV-park rules would require rezoning and paved roads

Kaplan has published a proposed ordinance that would change where recreational vehicles may be used as living quarters inside city limits. The draft published September 23 would require an RV park zoning district for parks and prohibit using an RV as a permanent residence outside an approved park. It is not an adopted law: the published copy leaves the council's vote lines blank. Its future-dated October 20 signature block does not establish when or whether the council will take it up.

Vermilion Boom editorial graphic summarizing three provisions of Kaplan's published draft ordinance 26-10. The proposal has not been adopted.

The distinction matters for residents using an RV as housing on private property and for anyone considering a small park. The draft defines an RV park as land with two or more RVs placed or occupied for temporary living. Even a two-space park would have to meet its proposed three-acre minimum. Each space would need water, approved sewage disposal and electricity, while the whole park would need a stormwater plan. Loose gravel or crushed stone could serve as a sub-base, but not the finished surface of pads and internal roads. Those are requirements in the proposed text, not standards already verified in force.

Opening or expanding a park would not be automatic under the proposal. The published draft calls for an engineered site plan, Planning and Zoning Commission review and a public hearing, then a City Council decision on rezoning the property to a new RV Park District. Adoption of the citywide ordinance would not itself approve any particular park: a property would still need its own rezoning and a change to the zoning map before operating.

The published draft does not clearly say whether existing parks would be grandfathered or how current RV occupants outside parks would be treated if the ordinance passes. It also gives no verified date for a council vote or instructions for public comment on this proposal. Those are consequential unanswered questions, not reasons to assume a change to an existing site is already in force.

Kaplan's proposal covers the city, not unincorporated Vermilion Parish.