Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Manufactured Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Foster council reopens debate on manufactured‑home zoning after confused state-law changes
Summary
Councilors and residents spent extended time debating proposed changes to the town—s manufactured‑home provisions and state law language; the council agreed to reconsider related ordinance sections and then voted to delay final action pending a joint planning-board meeting.
Foster '024 '04
The Foster Town Council spent a lengthy portion of its meeting disputing how recent state legislation and local code edits affect where manufactured homes may be placed in town, and it declined to finalize several ordinance changes pending deeper review with the planning board.
At a public hearing, staff said the amendments were intended to align local code with state building‑code citations and to clarify that temporary house trailers are treated separately from permanent manufactured homes. Planning staff described the draft as correcting incorrect citations to the state building code and adding definitions to reduce ambiguity.
Residents and planning‑board representatives pressed the council over definitions and consequences. Resident Gordon Rogers, citing his experience with mobile and manufactured homes, warned that a broad change could permit transportable manufactured homes on nearly every residential lot because most of Foster falls in the AR zoning district. Planning staff and other speakers said some of the statutory language recently changed from a mandatory 'shall' to a permissive 'may' for towns, which affects local discretion.
Several council members said the difference between modular homes, manufactured homes and older mobile homes remains confusing to constituents. Staff explained that modular homes are typically assembled on a permanent foundation and are not the same as HUD‑rated manufactured units that retain a chassis; the building official enforces foundation and code requirements for any permitted manufactured home.
A motion to reconsider a set of ordinance sections (16‑31, 16‑57, 16‑58, 16‑59, 16‑60, 38‑2 and 38‑272) was made and initially approved so the council could reexamine the language. At the formal reconsideration vote later in the meeting, the council voted against adopting the proposed changes and directed staff to schedule a joint meeting with the planning board to resolve open questions and to provide clearer guidance to residents before a final vote.
What happens next: The council said it will convene a joint meeting with the planning board to reconcile statutory citations and definitions, then reopen the ordinances for public hearing and action. The postponement means no immediate change to where manufactured homes may be located; any future action will be publicly noticed and reintroduced for formal votes.
