Agenda - 11-03-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

0134. DRAFT JOINT PUBLIC BEARING PAGE 2 actual space on which the mobile home would sit. The deletion of Article 6.21.1 a) 2) r if approved, would provide a "grandfather situation" for existing nonconforming mobile home parks= they could exist as they are with units being removed and replaced provided the overall number of units do not increase and the mobile home park itself is not expanded. Collins noted that if this ordinance amendment is approved, there will be a study of existing mobile home parks and the standards which have been adopted to determine whether or not they are fair and equitable in their applica- tion. There has been a report submitted to the Board of Commissioners. Additional information has been distributed tonight which was received from the Sheriff's Department regarding the number of calls received from mobile home parks in the last four years. Collins noted that this report indicated that approximately 5% of all calls received by the Sheriff's Department were from residents of mobile home courts and parks and that 11% of the housing in Orange County is mobile homes. It is the desire of the Planning Staff to develop an ordinance which is satisfactory to Orange County. the mobile home park owner/operators and the residents of the parks. The emphasis of the study would be on the health and safety issues and what standards, if any, should apply to new and existing uobile home parks. Chair Walters noted that the proposed amendment to Article 6.21.1 a) 2) would, in effect, delete the requirement that each mobile home space in an existing mobile home park be improved in accordance with subsection 7.20.4 a) that contains new design standards regarding space size (10.000 sq. ft.) , setbacks, patios/decks. etc. Jim Cole, attorney representing mobile home park owner/oper- ators, spoke. He indicated that the citizens in attendance had already attended several meetings and had expressed their desire to have Article 6.21.1 a) 2) deleted. He addressed the following paragraph from the agenda abstract: "The deletion of Article 6.21.1 a) 2) , if approved would provide a 'grandfather situation' for existing nonconforming mobile home parks during a period in which mobile home park owner/operators would work with the Planning Department/- Board in developing standards for new/existing parks. The standards would then be brought back to public hearing at i later date." He stated that the desire of the park owner/operators is to delete the Article and keep the existing standards for existing mobile home parks and have the new standards for new obile home parks. He continued inquiring why mobile home parks were "picked out" for an investi