Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~~~ <br />The deletion of Article 5.21.1 a) 2), if approved, would provide a <br />"grandfather situation" for existing nonconforming mobile home parks; <br />they could exist .as they are with units being removed and replaced <br />provided the overall number of units do not increase and the mobile home <br />park itself is not expanded. Collins noted that if .this ordinance <br />amendment is approved, there will be a study of existing mobile home <br />parks and the standards which have been adopted to determine whether or <br />not they are fair and equitable in their application. There has been a <br />report submitted to the Board of Commissioners. Additional information <br />has been distributed tonight which was received from the Sheriff's <br />Department regarding the number of calls received from mobile home parks <br />in the last four years. Collins noted that this report indicated that <br />approximately 5~.of all calls received by the Sheriff's Department were <br />from residents of mobile home courts and parks and that il% of the <br />housing in Orange County is mobile homes. It is the .desire of the <br />Planning Staff to develop an ordinance which is satisfactory to Orange <br />County, the mobile home park owner/operators and the residents of the <br />parks. The emphasis of the study would be on the health and safety <br />issues and what standards, if any, should apply to new and existing <br />mobile home parks. <br />Chair Walters noted that the proposed amendment to Article 5.21.1 a) <br />2) would, in effect, delete the requirement that each mobile home space <br />in an existing mobile home park be improved in accordance with <br />subsection 7.20.4 a) that contains new design standards regarding space <br />size (10,000 sq. ft.), setbacks, patios/decks, etc. <br />Jim Cole, attorney representing mobile home park owner/operators, <br />spoke. He indicated that the citizens in attendance had already <br />attended several meetings and had expressed their desire to have Article <br />6.21.1 a) 2) deleted. He addressed the following paragraph from the <br />agenda abstract: <br />"The deletion of Article.6.21.1 a) 2), if approved would provide a <br />'grandfather situation' for existing nonconforming mobile home parks <br />during a period in which mobile home park owner/operators would work <br />with the Planning Department/Board in developing standards for <br />new/existing parks. The standards would then be brought back to public <br />hearing at a later date." <br />He stated that the desire. of the park owner/operators is to delete <br />the Article and keep the existing standards for existing mobile home <br />parks and have the new standards for new mobile home parks. He <br />continued inquiring why mobile home parks were "picked out" for an <br />investigation into health and safety standards rather than such an <br />investigation being conducted for all of Orange County housing. He <br />indicated that 2/3 or more of the people living in mobile home parks own <br />their own lot and that those citizens do not feel such an investigation <br />is needed. He suggested that there are apartment projects in orange <br />County which present health and safety hazards and are not being <br />investigated. <br />Mr. Cole continued, expressing the feeling that mobile home park <br />owner/operators as well as mobile home park residents were being <br />legislated out of existence simply because the aesthetics were not what <br />some Board members would desire. <br />Cheryl Moody noted that her mobile home park has been in existence <br />for thirty years. She continued that she is a teacher, a professional, <br />