Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Mobile Home Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces update to mobile-home park rules amid debate on enforcement and standards
Summary
The council introduced an ordinance to raise operational standards for new mobile-home parks, prompting detailed discussion about drive surfaces, skirting, inspections and whether existing parks can be phased to new standards.
The New Iberia City Council introduced an ordinance amending mobile-home park operational standards in the city code and set a public hearing, drawing extensive discussion from council members and staff about enforcement, grandfathering and technical requirements.
The ordinance (introduced as ordinance number 2025-18) would change standards for future mobile-home parks: examples discussed included requiring concrete or asphalt parking pads and drives, manufacturer-approved skirting, a minimum green-space allocation (council members referenced a 6% example taken from other cities), and inspection and licensing requirements. Jane (planning staff) identified areas where the existing ordinance language was antiquated and said the draft aims to produce “a better product” for future developments.
Council members debated whether existing parks could be required to meet new standards. Councilman Troy Como and others warned that applying new requirements retroactively could prompt legal challenges; staff and the city attorney were asked to check whether compliance timelines or grace periods could be applied to existing operations. Council members also discussed private drives inside trailer parks and how those differ from privately owned drives used for single-property access.
The transcript records several technical clarifications: parking pads would be specified (example language in the draft called for a 10-by-26-foot, 4-inch-thick concrete pad measured from the front of the site), drives and parking would need paved surfaces to prevent mud and erosion, and a requirement that some percentage of the park be set aside as green space was proposed to improve neighborhood character.
Speakers repeatedly raised enforcement questions: how “good character” for managers would be judged, what remedies the city would use for noncompliant properties, and whether compliance would be complaint-driven (staff said inspections for new parks would be required and that existing parks currently receive exterior, annual inspections). Council members asked staff to produce clearer wording and enforcement options; staff said comments would be collated and the ordinance revised before final adoption.
The council agreed to move the ordinance forward for continued drafting and set a public hearing date (the council discussed a July hearing date and agreed on steps for public review and further amendment). Staff said they would circulate a revised draft to council members for additional comment ahead of the public hearing.
Ending: Council members expressed support for continued work on the ordinance but did not adopt final language; the item will be revised and returned with a public hearing notice.
