Perry County workgroup explores ECHO tiny‑home pilot as a stopgap for aging residents
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Perry County housing partners discussed pursuing a state ECHO tiny‑home grant, potential local builders, zoning barriers and septic costs; participants said they would pilot a single ECHO unit first while pursuing CHDO capacity and capital partners to hold properties until grant funding is available.
Perry County housing partners and local developers discussed steps to pilot the state ECHO program and the practical barriers to placing small HUD‑stamped homes across the county. Meeting participants agreed to pursue one pilot ECHO unit initially while gathering municipal ordinance language, engineering estimates and potential capital partners.
The meeting facilitator (name not specified) said county commissioners have narrowed potential structures for purchase and that the Perry Housing Partnership would likely oversee the ECHO rollout. Tara Davis, who joined the call and said she has formed a CHDO nonprofit to pursue grants, described a Hanover‑area prototype she said “could sell super cheap” and is HUD‑stamped. Davis also said the builder could sometimes supply a prototype at reduced cost; she noted “it was all custom built” and estimated an example unit might be offered near the low tens of thousands.
Speakers repeatedly flagged local land‑use and environmental constraints as the chief obstacles. Tom Grappensberger, a planner who participates with Ohio Township and Tri‑County Regional Planning, described soil and septic limits and the growing use of sand‑mound systems: “they would go from a couple thousand up to 17 to 20,000 now for a… sand mound system,” he said, noting that expensive septic upgrades would make many sites impractical for the program. Participants discussed alternatives — including holding tanks or packaged treatment systems — but emphasized DEP requirements and ongoing regulatory scrutiny.
Municipal zoning also mattered. The group noted Tuscarora Township’s ordinance explicitly allows accessory dwelling units in certain districts, while many other municipalities did not respond to an initial county survey. The facilitator urged a case‑by‑case approach and proposed gathering ordinance text and examples from neighboring counties that have implemented ECHO to guide placement decisions.
On financing, Davis said her nonprofit could help funnel grant allocations that are reserved for CHDOs and that she was recruiting capital partners who might buy and hold buildings until grants (including HOME and other sources) were awarded. Participants also discussed a separate 62‑and‑over housing project, which Becky Schock said is working with Pivotal Financials on subsidy‑layering review and is not expected to break ground for roughly a year.
Next steps the group agreed to pursue included collecting ordinance copies from interested municipalities, rescheduling a site tour of a potential local builder, obtaining firm cost quotes for prototype units and septic/utility tie‑in estimates, and inviting peer counties that have installed ECHO homes to share how they navigated barriers. The facilitator said the group would start with one pilot home and revisit expansion after resolving siting and funding challenges.