Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <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 /> 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 11% 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 6.21. 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 />