Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves rewrite of Chapter 19 to clarify mobile home park relocation, funds and procedures
Summary
The board unanimously approved CDC A‑25‑005, a repeal and replacement of Chapter 19 to formalize an application process, require neighborhood meetings, standardize relocation fund calculations (monthly rent gap up to 24 months or lump sum), clarify eligibility rules tied to title ownership and eviction filings, and add related fee and definition changes.
On Nov. 6, 2025, the Largo Planning Board voted 5–0 to approve CDC A‑25‑005, a repeal and replacement of Chapter 19 of the Comprehensive Development Code and companion edits to Chapter 20 definitions and the fee schedule. The amendments clarify the process and funding when a mobile home park owner seeks a change of use.
Staff said the revised chapter formalizes an application process and requires a neighborhood meeting open to all park residents so the city and owner can collect household information (household size, income, special needs) and connect residents to other services. The amendment defines suitable and adequate replacement housing using three criteria—affordability, suitability and availability—and retains the existing 10‑mile availability range in the current code.
The amendment standardizes calculation methods for a relocation fund and supplemental rent assistance. Staff explained the calculation will use State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) income limits and HUD fair market rent to determine the monthly rent gap; eligible residents may receive that gap as monthly assistance for up to 24 months or, alternatively, receive a lump‑sum payment. Staff said a lump sum paid directly to a resident by the developer would not incur the city’s existing 15% administrative fee, which applies when the city administers monthly payments.
Staff also recommended clarifying the code’s ineligibility language: residents would be considered ineligible only if an eviction has been filed for nonpayment, rather than an unspecified or mechanically applied “late rent” standard. Staff said the application window and timing will be adjusted so approvals can be processed before a park’s closure (moving the relevant trigger point from 90 days after eviction notice toward a 45‑day pre‑closure window for approvals). The presenter said direct moving costs are not included in the developer deposit under the proposed chapter, although staff has in prior park closures used other funding sources to assist with related costs where available.
Board members asked whether the changes would make suitable replacement housing easier to find, whether the changes could incentivize more eviction notices, and who would bear legal costs if disputes arise. Staff acknowledged trade‑offs and emphasized the neighborhood meeting and clearer communication to residents as measures to reduce surprises and help connect people to other resources when they are not eligible for the developer‑funded fund.
With no public speakers, the board moved and seconded approval; roll call recorded five yes votes and the motion carried 5–0. Staff said the revised code is planned for City Commission first reading in December and adoption hearing in January.
