Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Manufactured Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake City planning board recommends repeal of mobile‑home moratorium after state law change
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council repeal a recent moratorium on acceptance and consideration of mobile and manufactured home land‑use applications, citing state law changes in Senate Bill 180 and related limits on local permitting following declared emergencies.
The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Lake City voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council repeal a temporary moratorium on acceptance and consideration of applications for mobile and manufactured homes, board members said at their public meeting.
City staff identified Senate Bill 180, passed this year, as the impetus for the repeal. City staff member Angelo told the board that SB 180 "prohibits cities and counties from adopting a moratorium or any kind of regulation that is stricter than what is currently in the land development regulations." The resolution the board approved—Resolution PZLPA Repeal M‑25‑01—would instruct the City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 20252337 repealing Ordinance No. 20252316, which had declared the moratorium.
The issue drew public comment from developers and residents who gave contrasting views about manufactured housing. Shannon Acevedo, representing DLP Capital, described a planned project she said would create 155 ground‑up mobile‑home lots and serve "first time homebuyers and really solving for that missing middle that we think is really needed, within the city." Dennis Jordan, vice president of sales and operations for DLP Capital's manufactured‑home division, criticized what he described as singling out manufactured homes and said a moratorium would jeopardize the project’s financial feasibility.
Resident Barbara Limley told the board she was concerned about manufactured homes placed near the city’s historic district and said those units "did not fit in that area." Marty Martin, who identified himself as an employee of Champion Home Builders, echoed the housing‑supply argument and urged the board to preserve options for affordable housing.
Board discussion focused on the legal effect of SB 180 rather than zoning merits. City staff described the law as imposing a limitation for a period tied to declared states of emergency: "for the time being ... it's tied to areas that are under declared states of emergency" and is tied to "a period of 1 year following a declared state of emergency for this county," Angelo said. During discussion two speakers referenced different distance thresholds from a landfalling hurricane (one reference to 180 miles and later a reference to 100 miles), and a city attorney/staff member offered to return with clarification at a future meeting.
After the motion to recommend repeal was made and seconded, the board recorded unanimous support in a roll call and voted to forward the repeal resolution to the City Council for final action. The board did not itself repeal the ordinance; it recommended that the council adopt Ordinance No. 20252337 to repeal Ordinance No. 20252316.
Why it matters: supporters said repealing the moratorium would allow a pending DLP Capital project and other development activity to proceed and preserve a locally available method of producing lower‑cost, owner‑occupied housing. Opponents raised concerns about compatibility of certain manufactured units with historic neighborhoods. The city said the legal restrictions tied to SB 180 and to declared emergency periods currently limit the board’s ability to adopt new, more restrictive land‑use regulations.
