Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
0 ti <br /> DRAFT JOINT PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 4 <br /> words are the key to the change in the zoning ordinance. :e <br /> noted that Webster,s Dictionary gives the definition of <br /> "improve" as "'to make/ as land or real estate, more <br /> profitable by cultivation or construction" . He noted as an <br /> example the betterment of a road means the resurfacing of it <br /> not the destruction of it simply to resurface it. Be stated <br /> further that the definition of development" is ' the gradual <br /> growth of advancement to progressive changes from an embryo <br /> state until maturity". He felt that in real estate this <br /> would mean the beginning of the plane the actual <br /> con-truction and the completion of the project. <br /> Mr. Berini continued that his interpretation of improving a <br /> mobile home park would not include the destruction of the <br /> facilities of the adjacent space as he felt the zoning <br /> amendment would require the park owner to do in order to <br /> meet the higher level of amenities. He continued that <br /> zoning should not require condemnation and destruction of <br /> the use of a lot/ and he felt this was unconstitutional. <br /> Mr. Berini asked that the 1=oard members place themselves in <br /> the position of the mobile home residents and park owners <br /> and consider how they would desire the decision on the <br /> amendment to be made. He reminded the Boards that <br /> regulations in effect at the time the parks were built had <br /> been met. <br /> J. B. Stinson/ owner of a mobile home park on Route 2. <br /> Mebane, stated he had been having problems since Bece".er. <br /> 1985 with Orange County concerning the placement of an <br /> additional mobile hole in his park. He expressed much <br /> dissatisfaction with current regulations and felt there was <br /> no need for further regulations. <br /> Beth Bradshaw, mobile home park owner, stated that her <br /> mobile home co unity was built in such a manner that <br /> surpassed regulations and requirements. She noted that <br /> there is always a waiting list for a space in her park. She <br /> continued expressing the concern that any retro-active. <br /> amendment would be illegal. She noted that retro-active <br /> legislation was not needed and urged the Boards to go <br /> forward with the knowledge that had been gained and initiate <br /> regulations for new mobile home parks only. <br /> Ronald GaHm on, mobile home owner, expressed dissatisfaction <br /> with the retro-active amendment. He asked the Boards how <br /> they would react if they were told to make considerable <br /> improvements to their homes which they did not want or could <br /> not afford. <br /> Ronnie Hester, a four-year resident in a mobile home in <br /> Orange County/ expressed concern that more was being <br /> required of residents than they wanted or could afford. He <br /> also noted that for many residents. a mobile holle is a <br /> stepping-stone to owning property and a home. <br /> Katherine Mercer. a mobile home resident/ expressed concern <br />