Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br /> would increase, defeating the County's goal of <br /> encouraging affordable housing developments. Further <br /> comments were made in reference to the perceived <br /> prejudice the County has against mobile homes and that <br /> there should be more equity in the regulations that <br /> apply to mobile home parks and conventional single <br /> family developments. <br /> Changing from an "acreage" to a "unit" size limit on <br /> would have the effect of placing a ceiling on mobile <br /> home parks of 50 units. For example, a mobile home <br /> park of 50 acres in size and developed in a zoning <br /> district where the minimum lot are per dwelling was <br /> 40,000 sq.ft. would be limited to approximately 50 <br /> units not just by the 50-unit ceiling but by the <br /> minimum lot area per dwelling as well. However, in a <br /> zoning district where the minimum lot area per <br /> dwelling was 20,000 sq.ft. , the ceiling would still be <br /> 50 units even though the minimum lot area per dwelling <br /> standard would permit approximately 100 units. <br /> Application of the 50-unit ceiling to zoning districts <br /> where greater densities were permitted would result in <br /> a greater disparity. <br /> Based on the above comments, mobile homes would be <br /> treated differently from single-family developments. <br /> Single-family dwellings could be developed on lots as <br /> small as 3,000 sq.ft. (R-13 zoning district) and with <br /> no limitation on unit numbers other than minimum lot <br /> area per dwelling limits. <br /> Requiring a separate entrance for each mobile home <br /> park could result in unwanted parallel roads and <br /> multiple (and adjoining) access points to public <br /> roads, particularly if mobile home parks are developed <br /> adjacent to each other. While a separate entrance may <br /> be desirable, allowing the entrance to be provided <br /> from a private drive or road leading to an existing <br /> mobile home park would reduce the number of access <br /> points to a public road. <br /> The additional expense for a sign at each entrance is <br /> not unique to this amendment. The current ordinance <br /> provisions would require separate signs. The same <br /> reasoning applies to the 100-foot buffer requirement. <br /> Planning Board Recommendation <br /> The Planning Board recommended approval of the <br /> proposed amendments with the following changes: <br /> 1. Amend Article 22 (definition of "mobile home park" ) <br /> to read as follows: <br />