Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council raises zoning and right‑of‑first‑refusal concerns after state housing bill changes
Summary
Council members reviewed recent state housing law changes (referred to as House Bill 8002) that removed a 22‑foot manufactured‑home width threshold in the zoning statute and discussed how the right‑of‑first‑refusal statute’s interpretation of portfolio sales may block resident purchases; members recommended pursuing an AG opinion and preparing legislative fixes at a special meeting.
Council members discussed how recent state legislative changes affect mobile/manufactured housing and called for focused work to address practical barriers to resident ownership.
Raffy Podolsky explained that the recent change to the state zoning statute removed the prior 22‑foot minimum‑width requirement, meaning municipalities can no longer condition protections on a unit being at least 22 feet wide. "The statute struck the language that said it have to be at least 22 feet wide," Podolsky said, and he cautioned that removing the width test helps remove one regulatory barrier but does not automatically resolve local density or infrastructure constraints that can still prevent park development.
Members noted a separate concern with the state’s right‑of‑first‑refusal rule: as currently interpreted in some transactions, sellers treating multi‑park portfolio sales as a single package can make it practically impossible for resident groups to buy an individual park. One council member summarized the problem: because portfolio sales are sometimes offered only as a bundled transaction, resident groups cannot match a per‑park price and therefore cannot exercise the intended purchase right. That interpretation, several members said, has undercut resident‑ownership goals in practice and differs from how similar statutes have been interpreted in other states.
Responses at the meeting included two near‑term steps: drafting possible statutory language changes for 2026 and seeking guidance from the attorney general about whether towns that currently prohibit parks violate the statute. Members proposed a special meeting (or legislative subcommittee) before the start of the 2026 legislative session, with a tentative target of Dec. 17 to begin drafting recommended fixes and to consider whether to request an AG opinion.
The council did not adopt formal legislative language at the meeting; members agreed to meet in a special session or subgroup to develop proposed statutory changes and to coordinate outreach to municipal planners and stakeholders ahead of the legislative session.
