Commission backs variances and rezoning for Rainbow Lane mobile home court, with inspections and unit limits

The Machesney Park Planning and Zoning Commission on Oct. 27 voted to forward positive recommendations on variance requests and a zoning map amendment to bring a long‑standing, nonconforming Rainbow Lane mobile home court into the mobile home district — subject to multiple conditions intended to protect residents and public safety.

Staff said the site has been a preexisting nonconforming mobile home court since annexation in 1983 and that multiple code requirements have been ignored over time. To allow the owner to make road and safety improvements, staff recommended variances from 12 performance standards in the mobile home district. Key staff recommendations included allowing a reduced buffer from the lot boundary (5 feet for replacement units versus the code’s 25 feet), permitting a lower land‑area‑per‑unit density than the code’s 6,000 sq. ft. requirement (staff said the lot size would limit the site to 26 mobile homes under the density standard), allowing certain parking and sidewalk deviations, requiring inspections of every mobile home and accessory structure, requiring a registry of title‑holder information to be provided to the village by Jan. 30, and requiring private well testing with results to the village by May 1; road improvement permits were to be applied for by Feb. 27 with a completion target of Feb. 27, 2027. Staff clarified that the variances are contingent on the zoning change to the mobile home district.

Attorney Blake Stubbs, representing the owner, told the commission the owner had expected permission for about 40 units and argued that mobile home parks are an important source of affordable housing. Stubbs cited what he described as the Mobile Home Park Act and said the average lot rent for the park is approximately $450 per month, compared with an average one‑bedroom apartment in Machesney Park he said is about $1,500—arguing that short‑term displacement would be difficult for residents.

Residents and property owners who spoke urged safety upgrades and expressed concern about displacement, density and property values. Public commenters described decrepit units, tarps and makeshift repairs, repeated fires (one in January 2024), noise and concerns that reducing the park to 26 lots would make the owner unable to cover mortgage and operating costs. One resident, who owns multiple trailers, said she rents to provide “a nice place plus affordable.” Another resident described extensive personal investment to make a unit livable. Fire‑safety concerns were raised repeatedly; one commenter criticized the proximity of structures and trees and the risk of rapid fire spread at higher densities.

Commissioners discussed whether approving the variances would preserve residents’ housing or enable the owner to expand density; staff emphasized the variances’ core purpose is to allow safety‑driven permitted repairs and infrastructure upgrades while preventing expansion that would exacerbate nonconformity. After debate the commission adopted the findings of fact and, by roll call, gave a positive recommendation to the Planning & Economic Development Committee on Nov. 3. The roll call recorded Commissioner Hankins voting No and the remaining commissioners voting Yes.

Next steps: the recommendations and conditions will be considered by the Planning & Economic Development Committee on Nov. 3, 2025; inspections, registry submission and well testing are conditions the village staff will track if the committee and Village Board approve the measures.