Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Aside from the efficiency apartment provisions, there 2 <br />have been two circumstances (other than use by farm <br />workers) under which a second mobile home could be <br />permitted on a single lot. <br />First, temporary use of a mobile home for custodial <br />care of a family member may be approved as a C1ass'B <br />special Use. <br />Second was an administrative practice to allow a <br />mobile home as a second unit in unzoned townships, <br />provided that the mobile home was occupied by a family <br />member. This practice was initiated to provide the <br />unzoned townships with a provision equivalent to the <br />Class B Temporary Use Permit. Problems with attempted <br />abuses, and difficulty in monitoring who actually <br />lived in.the structure were encountered repeatedly. <br />The practice was discontinued in 1990. <br />The existing provisions relating to efficiency <br />apartments were proposed at about the same time that <br />the latter practice was discontinued. The efficiency <br />apartment definition is administratively applied to <br />the unzoned townships as well, and provides a means of <br />addressing some situations which could have been <br />allowed under the prior administrative practice. <br />Efficiency apartments are limited to a size of 800 <br />square feet. This size is smaller than most single - <br />family residences, yet is large enough to comfortably <br />accommodate a handicapped individual. There is an <br />underlying assumption that this size limit will <br />effectively limit the number of occupants to 1 or 2. <br />Traffic generation is expected to be about half of <br />that generated by residences of a more average size. <br />The impacts are expected to be the same for all types <br />of efficiency apartments, whether attached or <br />detached, or mobile or stick - built. <br />Although there are several provisions which may allow <br />placement of a second mobile home on a lot, the <br />provisions serve different purposes and circumstances <br />are not found by staff to be in conflict. <br />The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment <br />on September 16, 1991. After some discussion for <br />clarification, the Board recommended approval. <br />RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed <br />amendment. <br />