Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Lancaster planners begin drafting zoning changes after state law widens placement of manufactured homes
Loading...
Summary
At their April meeting, Lancaster County planning commissioners reviewed Senate Bill 346 and discussed how the new Virginia language, which requires manufactured homes to be treated like site-built single-family dwellings under certain conditions, will force local zoning updates and raise design and waterfront concerns.
At the April 2026 meeting, the Lancaster County Planning Commission reviewed recent Virginia legislation and staff materials about manufactured homes, concluding the county will need to revise parts of its zoning code to comply.
A county staff member summarized the bill’s effect: “The bill provides that localities shall not adopt or enforce any zoning, land use, or development regulation that treats manufactured homes differently or more restrictively than a single family site built dwelling allowed in the same zoning district,” the staff member said. Staff provided copies of the prior and newly passed code language and a report identifying county code sections that may require amendment.
Why it matters: the change broadens where qualifying manufactured homes may be placed by requiring parity with site-built single-family houses in districts where those houses are allowed. Staff emphasized the law applies to individual manufactured single-family dwellings on individual lots — not manufactured-home parks — and identified three implementation conditions drawn from the code: the unit must be converted to real estate, be constructed so a certificate of occupancy can be issued within five years of the date plate, and be placed on an individual lot.
Commissioners questioned how the county should interpret “converted to real estate” and how that term overlaps with local rules on foundations and roof pitch. One commissioner asked whether the county’s existing roof-pitch and foundation language effectively duplicates the state standard. The staff member said the county code’s language is unclear and recommended consulting the county attorney and the building official for definitive guidance. The building official (discussed in the meeting) was reported to have noted recent construction methods — including steel framing underneath newer units — that may be considered permanent by practice, and commissioners raised related items such as skirting and hurricane straps as unresolved technical details.
The discussion also addressed design and equity questions. Commissioners noted that if the county requires a specific roof pitch or other design standard for a manufactured home, the same standard must apply to stick-built homes in the same district to comply with the state requirement. Commissioners warned that adopting a uniform roof-pitch rule (for example, 3:12) could exclude modern flat-roof designs in the county. Staff additionally noted that homeowners association covenants and private deed restrictions remain enforceable and would not be preempted by the statutory changes.
Staff said the provisions appear to take effect July 1, 2026, but recommended the commission verify the effective date and implementation steps with the county attorney and the building official before drafting local code language. The commission agreed to seek legal and technical clarification from County Attorney Jim Cornwell and Building Official Brett Dawson and to prepare draft amendment language only after those consultations.
The commission closed the work session with staff directed to return with recommended wording and clarifications for any code sections that would need amending.
The meeting also included routine business and scheduling; the commission adjourned after agreeing to reconvene in June for elections.
