Council considers amendment to allow manufactured homes in R-3 only where block character supports them
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
County planning staff proposed an amendment to the land development code enabling manufactured homes in R-3 areas only where at least 50% of lots on the same side of a block already contain manufactured homes; the item was discussed and approved on the consent agenda for first reading with a recorded 'No' by one councilmember.
Richland County planning staff presented a proposed amendment to the land development code at the Dec. 2 meeting that would permit manufactured homes in R-3 zoning only when the existing character of the block already includes manufactured homes. Gionar Price, deputy director for Community Planning and Development, said the amendment corrects an omission that left R-3 areas without an explicit allowance for manufactured homes and is designed to allow replacements in established manufactured‑home areas while preserving single‑family character elsewhere.
"This proposed amendment does is it allows manufactured homes to be located in the R 3 zoning designation, but only if the character of the area has been developed with manufactured homes," Price said, explaining that a 50 percent threshold on the same side of a block would be required before a manufactured home could be sited.
Price said the amendment would not open new subdivisions or permit manufactured units on otherwise single‑family lots; rather it recognizes existing manufactured‑home communities. Councilmembers asked for clarification about the definition of a "block" and whether rural stretches could create unusually long blocks; Price replied that rural districts (R‑1 and others) already permit manufactured homes by right and that the amendment focuses on areas where manufactured homes are already established.
Councilmembers expressed support for the approach while noting constituent concerns; one councilmember said she supported the substance but recorded a 'No' vote to keep the item off the consent agenda in case further discussion is needed. This item is at first reading; council discussed process timing and noted that, if moved forward, second reading would occur at the next meeting (Dec. 9) and a public hearing would be scheduled at the third reading (Feb. 3). No final ordinance adoption occurred at this meeting.
