Planning commission to draft ordinance requiring newer mobile/modular homes and permits before transport
Loading...
Summary
At a March 13 Huntington planning and zoning meeting, commissioners discussed requiring replacement or newly placed mobile/modular homes to be 20 years old or newer and to have building permits in place before transport; staff will draft and post the ordinance for city council review.
HUNTINGTON — The Huntington City Planning & Zoning Commission spent most of its March 13 meeting discussing proposed changes to the city’s zoning code that would guide placement of mobile and modular homes and alter rules for recreational vehicle (RV) courts.
Commissioners agreed to direct staff to draft an ordinance that would add an age guideline and a permit requirement for new or replacement mobile/modular units, and to post the draft for public hearing before sending it to city council. No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
Why it matters: Commissioners said the changes are intended to discourage substandard units from becoming long-term dwellings and to ensure utilities and required work are addressed promptly. The proposal would affect placement standards in two sections of the city code — Chapter 9-7 (residential uses) and Chapter 9-10 (mobile home and RV parks) — and could change how mobile units are licensed and inspected in Huntington.
What the commission discussed
Scope and age guideline: A member of the commission (S2) proposed that a new or replacement mobile/modular home placed in Huntington should be no older than 20 years from the current calendar year. As S2 put it, “the standard or age of the unit to be placed or replacing an existing would be 20 years from the current calendar year or newer, [and] have the applicable building permits in place prior to transport.” The commission debated whether the rule should apply only to designated mobile-home parks or to any dwelling that is mobile or modular and moved into place.
Permits and enforcement: Commissioners discussed enforcement logistics with the county building inspector. One participant (S2) said the county enforces building permits and that requiring permits before transport gives property owners “a little bit of skin in the game” to complete required work. Commissioners noted building permits typically permit work windows ‘‘six months to a year’’ and suggested the city could follow up with the county if permits lapse or work remains incomplete.
RV-court rules: Commissioners read a current RV-court provision stating, “All recreational vehicle spaces shall be rented for a period of not more than 90 days,” and agreed to remove that 90-day rental limitation. As S1 said during the discussion, the 90-day rule ‘‘is what’s killing us’’ and the commission agreed to have staff strike the provision but leave open the option to revert the change if problems arise.
Code placement and process: Commissioners discussed where to insert the new language in Chapter 9 of the code book — likely near developmental standards that address dwelling size, setbacks and accessory dwelling provisions — so the new rule does not appear to single out particular structures. Staff and an identified reviewer (Janine) will draft wording, post the proposed change for public hearing, and forward the draft to city council for formal consideration.
What did not happen: The commission did not adopt a final ordinance or take a formal recorded vote on the substantive changes at the March 13 meeting. Commissioners asked staff to prepare the language and present it at a future meeting for motion and possible vote.
Quotes
S2 (commission member) on the proposed age guideline: “the standard or age of the unit to be placed or replacing an existing would be 20 years from the current calendar year or newer, have the applicable building permits in place prior to transport.”
S2 on enforcement and permits: “Most building permits are 6 months to a year. So it allows for time for fixes, but not an indefinite [period].”
S1 on the RV provision and why it should be removed: “All recreational vehicle spaces shall be rented for a period of not more than 90 days ... So we wanted to just strike out that whole thing.”
Next steps: Staff will record the agreed wording, post the proposed code amendments for public hearing, and submit the draft ordinance to city council. The commission will consider the formal motion and any amendments in a subsequent meeting.
Meeting notes: The commission also approved the January 9 and February 13 minutes (with corrections noted for the February 13 minutes) and adjourned after the zoning discussion.