Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> maximum size be 50 acres rather than 50 units. <br /> Collins continued that the reason for this <br /> recommendation is that when the words "fifty <br /> units" rather than "fifty acres" is used, the <br /> implication is that mobile home parks are being <br /> singled out and treated differently from other <br /> single family developments. If an area is <br /> changed from an R-1 to and R-2 district and the <br /> maximum allowance is 50 units, then an arbitrary <br /> ceiling is being set for mobile home parks and an <br /> R-2 district would allow 100 units on 50 acres. <br /> Collins reminded the Board that the history of <br /> working with mobile home park owners/operators <br /> indicated the treatment should be the same, <br /> insofar as possible, as that of other single <br /> family developments. He noted that he felt this <br /> , was a distinct difference in treatment that <br /> regardless of the zoning, a 50-unit maximum was <br /> the allowance for mobile home parks. <br /> Yuhasz expressed the concern that any size limit <br /> would be arbitrary. <br /> Jacobs noted that during the time of meetings <br /> with mobile home park owners/operators the number <br /> 50 was considered by them to be a more fair <br /> option. Jacobs also noted that the Low and <br /> Moderate Income Housing Task Force had <br /> recommended that no limit be set but that they <br /> did not appear at the public hearing to make that <br /> recommendation. <br /> Collins continued with the second change since <br /> the public hearing which is that the following <br /> sentence be added to the second paragraph of <br /> Article 7 .20.2: <br /> Where an existing mobile home park is served by a <br /> private drive or road, the entrance for the <br /> proposed park may be extended from the private <br /> drive or road. • <br /> MOTION: Best moved approval of the Planning Staff <br /> recommendation for Article 22. Seconded by <br /> Hamilton. <br /> VOTE: 6 in favor. <br /> 3 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz, Jacobs - all objected <br /> to the reference to size limitation) . <br /> Best expressed concern that there seemed to be no <br /> intent of upgrading of the private road if indeed <br /> it was accessed by an adjoining mobile home park. <br />