Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board proposes removing duplicated mobile‑home park rules and reconciling lot standards
Summary
Board members and consultants told the Huntington Township planning board the mobile‑home park section of the subdivision ordinance duplicates modern zoning and design standards and recommended removing the SALDO section and moving dimensional controls into the zoning ordinance; staff were directed to reconcile conflicting lot-size figures and return with edits.
Unidentified Speaker 4 told the Huntington Township planning board that the township’s subdivision/land‑development ordinance contains a separate mobile‑home park section that largely duplicates modern zoning and design standards. "Mobile home parks are the only type of residential development that gets special treatment in this," he said, arguing that stamp‑by‑stamp design requirements (streets, stormwater, sewage, utilities, fire protection) are already covered elsewhere.
Board members and consultants traced the provisions’ origin to older ordinances and the period before zoning was adopted (township zoning was adopted in 1999). Speaker 4 noted examples of inconsistent dimensional controls: one passage requires individual mobile‑home lots to be "not less than 50 feet wide" and "not less than 5,500 square feet," while another clause reads "at least 5,000 square feet" and 50 feet wide. He said those contradictions should be resolved so SALDO and the zoning ordinance use identical numeric standards.
The planning board agreed to remove the mobile‑home park design standards from the SALDO and move necessary dimensional controls into the zoning ordinance, with staff and the consultant to reconcile any residual provisions. "Pick it out of SALDO and clean it up and make it consistent," Unidentified Speaker 2 said, describing the action as an administrative cleanup rather than a policy change.
The board directed two members/consultants to continue the consolidation and return with revisions for review. No formal motion or vote was recorded in the transcript; the change was presented and accepted as an editorial/legal cleanup to reduce duplication and potential conflict with current zoning language.
Next steps: staff will reconcile the differing lot‑area numbers and coordinate any permanent permit or maintenance provisions (recording, maintenance agreements) into the appropriate ordinance sections and report back with redlined edits.
