Orange County NC Website
Obt <br /> DRAFT JOINT PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 2 <br /> actual spaCe on which the mobile home would sit. <br /> The deletion of Article 6. 21 . 1 a) 2) , if approved, would <br /> provide a "grandfather situation" for existing nonconforminO <br /> mobile home parks; they could exist as they are with units <br /> being removed and repiac-d provided the overall number of <br /> units do not increase and the mobile home park itself is not <br /> expanded , Collins noted that If this ordinance amendment is <br /> a pp rove d, there e � study Qtng mobile home <br /> parks and the standards which have been adopted to determine <br /> whether or not they .are fair and equitable in their applica- <br /> tion . There has been a report submitted to the Board of <br /> Commissioners . Additional information has been distributed <br /> tonight which was received from the Sheriff 's Department <br /> regarding the number of calls received from mobile home <br /> parks In the last four years . Collins noted that this . <br /> report indicated that approximately 5% of all calls received <br /> by the Sheriff 's Department were from residents of mobile <br /> home courts and parks and that 11% of the housing in Orange <br /> County is mobile homes. The study would also look at public <br /> health and safety issues . It Is the desire of the Planning <br /> Staff to develop an ordinance which Is satisfactory to <br /> Orange County, the mobile home park owner/operators and the <br /> residents of the parks . The emphasis of the study would be <br /> in the health and safety issues and what standards if any <br /> should apply to new and existing mobile home parks. <br /> Chair Walters noted that the proposed amendment would delete <br /> Article 6.21 . 1 a) 2) which requires that each mobile home <br /> space in an existing mobile home park be improved in <br /> accordance with subsection 7 .20.4 a) that contains new <br /> g regarding space ,� <br /> design standards re ardin g s ace size ( 10,000 sq. ft .) <br /> setbacks, patios/decks, etc. <br /> Jim Cole, attorney representing mobile home park owner/oper- <br /> ators , spoke. He indicated that the citizens in attendance <br /> had already attended several meetings and had expressed <br /> their desire to have Article <br /> 6.21 . 1 a) 2) deleted . He <br /> addressed the following, paragraph from the agenda abstracts <br /> "The deletion of Article 6 . 21 . 1 a) 2) . If approved would <br /> provide a 'grandfather situation ' for existing nonconforming <br /> mobile home parks during a period in which mobile home park <br /> owner/operators would work with the Planning Department/— <br /> Board I n developing standards for new/existing parks. The <br /> standards would then be brought back to public hearing at.,a <br /> later date ." <br /> He stated that the desire of the park owner/operators Is to <br /> delete the Article and keep the existing standards . for <br /> existing mobile home parks and have the new standards for <br /> new mobile home parks . He continued inquiring why mobile <br /> home parks were "picked out" for an investigation into <br /> health and safety standards rather than such an investiga- <br /> tion being conducted for all of Orange County housing. He <br />