Fort Thomas planning changes would tighten rules for RVs, flag-lot structures, patios and small farm animals

A cluster of residential-focused changes to the Fort Thomas Unified Development Ordinance drew extended discussion at the June 17 Planning Commission hearing. Together the proposals address recreational vehicles, flag‑lot accessory structures and fences, patios, manufactured housing, and animal setbacks.

On recreational vehicles, staff proposed explicitly prohibiting RVs, trailers and boats from parking on any street or public way in residential districts for more than 24 hours and requiring that RVs/trailers/boats parked in rear yards rest on a continuous paved surface (staff and commissioners clarified that well‑designed permeable pavers or engineered aggregate pads could meet the intent as long as the surface is continuous rather than isolated concrete blocks).

For flag lots, staff suggested allowing small accessory structures (200 square feet or smaller) in the front-yard area of a flag lot when that area functionally faces other property rear yards; such buildings would have to be placed no closer than 10 feet to any property line. Commissioners said flag lots are highly variable and the 200‑square‑foot threshold could be adjusted through dimensional-variance processes when appropriate.

Patios were proposed to require a zoning permit similar to decks because patios have like intensity of use and potential impacts on neighbors; staff said driveway permit and site-plan reviews would catch any attempt to reclassify a patio as a driveway to evade setbacks.

Staff also recommended updating the UDO to reference the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) definition for qualified manufactured homes (effective July 1), meaning the UDO would treat qualified manufactured housing consistent with state standards (for example, homes built within the last five years and meeting KRS criteria). Commissioners noted that state inspection and building-code approval are separate from local zoning siting rules; additions after placement are subject to local review.

Finally, staff proposed aligning the R1A zone’s animal distances with the city’s chicken-and‑rabbit ordinance by increasing the required distance from neighboring residences to 50 feet (the R1A language previously allowed 20 feet to a lot line). Commissioners observed that existing coops installed under prior rules may remain legal nonconforming uses and that dramatic site changes might create complex nonconformity questions.