Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Manufactured Mobile Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cleves committee debates manufactured and mobile‑home rules, suggests date thresholds and conditional review
Summary
Committee members debated whether permanently sited manufactured homes and mobile homes should be permitted, conditional, or prohibited; options included allowing replacements under date and inspection thresholds (post‑1974 or later), requiring conditional review, or banning new units in village core.
Cleves council and zoning committee members debated how the village should treat manufactured and mobile homes under a proposed model zoning code. The discussion focused on whether permanently sited manufactured homes should be allowed outright, permitted conditionally, or barred, and whether mobile homes should be allowed as replacements for existing nonconforming units.
Chris Schneider, Hamilton County planning staff, said the model code defines permanently sited manufactured homes as structures manufactured after federal standards (the model references post‑1995 units) and that local policy must decide whether to permit, conditionally allow, or prohibit them. The group noted several such units already exist in the village and recommended case‑by‑case evaluation.
Council member Mary Angeline said she favors restricting new trailers and would like none to be brought into the village going forward. "I would like to see no new trailers come to Cleves," Angeline said. Other members proposed allowing replacements of existing mobile homes only if the replacement meets a manufacture‑date or building‑inspection standard; dates discussed included post‑1974 and later thresholds.
Participants asked the village attorney to confirm whether a manufacture‑date threshold is legally enforceable and whether replacement language in the current code (allowing replacement of a nonconforming mobile home in limited circumstances) should be preserved or revised. Staff agreed to document committee positions and consult the attorney before drafting final ordinance language.
No formal vote was taken; the committee left the matter for further refinement and legal review.
