Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Manufactured Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reno County Planning Commission approves conditional use permit for manufactured home at East Fourth Avenue
Summary
The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit allowing Rocky and Dana Smith to place a 1995-or-newer manufactured home on a 0.88-acre parcel at 6605 East Fourth Avenue, subject to state and local permitting and standard conditions.
The Reno County Planning Commission on April 17 approved a conditional use permit for Rocky and Dana Smith to place a manufactured home (1995 or newer) on a 0.88-acre parcel at 6605 East Fourth Avenue.
Rocky Smith told commissioners he bought a 1995 manufactured home and intends to place it on the parcel for his ailing mother-in-law. He said the property already has two wells and a septic system that will be inspected and brought into compliance if needed. Smith said he has cleared brush and debris from the property and intends to maintain it.
County planner Mark (Mark Von Atchin) told the commission that vacant parcels in the R-1 rural residential zone require a conditional use permit for manufactured homes and that county regulations require manufactured homes to be 1994-model-year or newer to be sited in the county's residential areas. The planner noted the parcel is 0.88 acres and therefore a legal nonconforming lot because R-1 typically requires larger minimum acreage; staff recommended approval with two standard conditions: compliance with federal, state and local regulations during setup, and staff authority to rescind the permit if the permit holder later violates the permit terms or places a nonconforming manufactured home.
Commissioners discussed driveway locations, setbacks and the fact the applicant might later place a different manufactured home (including a newer double-wide) if needed; staff confirmed that swapping a permitted 1995 home for a newer manufactured home would be handled by permitting and would not require return to the commission. The commission also received one written public comment opposed to the request; staff noted the comment arrived after packet distribution but before the hearing.
After discussion the commission moved to approve the application based on the nine criteria outlined in the staff report and the two conditions of approval. The roll-call vote recorded commissioners voting yes; the record shows the motion carried.
